alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,777,950
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,327,308
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,457,829
<PP&E>                                      43,501,344
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,838,823)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,765,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,830,626
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        77,609
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,833,555
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,765,846
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,468,042
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,360,872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             183,028
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,825,009
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,825,009
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,825,009
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1941

NICOLE YVETTE WINSTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AIR FORCE REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:16-cv-01796-PJM)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicole Yvette Winston, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nicole Yvette Winston appeals the district court’s order 

denying her motions for reconsideration and for discovery. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Winston v. Air Force Review Bds. Agency, No. 8:16-cv01796-PJM (D. Md. July 27, 2016). We deny Winston’s motion for 

transcript at government expense and dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2

SOHU.COM INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Sohu.com Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carol Yu,
Co-President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of June 30, 2011 and results of operations of the Company for the
three months ended June 30, 2011.



/s/ Carol YuCarol Yu, Co-President and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 8, 2011
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

830 KA 11-01482 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMAL H., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DREW R. DUBRIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (GEOFFREY KAEUPER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an adjudication of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered May 25, 2011. Defendant was adjudicated a youthful offender upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the adjudication so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Same Memorandum as in People v Jamal H. ([appeal No. 2] ___ AD3d ___ [Sept. 27, 2013]).

Entered: September 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.1 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF 

THESARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Unigene Laboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Warren P. Levy, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial position and results of operations of the Company. 

 

/s/    Warren P. Levy                                

Warren P. Levy 

Chief Executive Officer 

November 14, 2003 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
CLD-164 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-4388

___________

DAVID MEYERS,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN ALLENWOOD USP; 

U.S. ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 1-13-cv-01630)

District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 30, 2014

Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

(Filed: February 3, 2014)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

David Meyers filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. At the time 

he filed the petition, Meyers was incarcerated at Riverside Regional Jail in Hopewell, 
2

Virginia. Meyers named as respondents to his petition, inter alia, a prison official 

associated with the United States Penitentiary in Allenwood, Pennsylvania. In his 

petition, Meyers sought review of past sentence calculations and credits. The District 

Court dismissed Meyers’ petition after determining that he named the wrong respondent 

and filed his petition in the wrong jurisdiction. Meyers appeals. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). In our review of 

the District Court’s order dismissing the § 2241 petition we “exercise plenary review 

over the District Court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous standard to its 

findings of fact.” O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 173 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005). We may 

summarily affirm if the appeal does not present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. LAR 

27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

We conclude that the District Court correctly dismissed Meyers’ petition. “[F]or 

core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only

one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). 

Accordingly, “[w]henever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present 

physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and 

file the petition in the district of confinement.” Id. at 447. Jurisdictional issues related to 

a prisoner’s custody are determined as of the date the habeas petition is filed. See Leyva 

v. Williams, 504 F.3d 357, 363 (3d Cir. 2007); Chong v. Dist. Dir., INS, 264 F.3d 378, 

382-83 (3d Cir. 2001). At the time Meyers filed his petition, he was not confined within 

the Middle District of Pennsylvania and none of the respondents were his warden. 

Accordingly, the District Court properly dismissed Meyers’ petition. 
3

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal presents no substantial question and we will 

summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 

(3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); see 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
STORM PATRICK WOOD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-3702

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 9, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge.

Storm Patrick Wood, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2014291EN.01000601.xml

| 30.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

29 August 2014

2014/C 291/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3188 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,11 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4520 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79530 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1658 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2061 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1465 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,725 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 315,02 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2171 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4065 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8506 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4123 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4314 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2208 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5752 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6456 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 337,97 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,0190 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,1018 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6210 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 437,61 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1648 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,583 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 48,7406 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,141 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9600 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2664 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,8100 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3188

JPY

Japanese yen

137,11

DKK

Danish krone

7,4520

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79530

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1658

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2061

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1465

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,725

HUF

Hungarian forint

315,02

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2171

RON

Romanian leu

4,4065

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8506

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4123

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4314

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2208

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5752

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6456

KRW

South Korean won

1 337,97

ZAR

South African rand

14,0190

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,1018

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6210

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 437,61

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1648

PHP

Philippine peso

57,583

RUB

Russian rouble

48,7406

THB

Thai baht

42,141

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9600

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2664

INR

Indian rupee

79,8100

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2014465EN.01000401.xml

| 24.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 465/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 465/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7442 — Eurazeo/Groupe Crédit Agricole/SCI Lafayette/SCI Stratège)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 465/03)

On 16 December 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7442. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7442. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2016125EN.01000401.xml

| 8.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 125/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

7 April 2016

(2016/C 125/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1364 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,15 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4417 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80728 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2575 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0884 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4546 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,025 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 312,28 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2833 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4659 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2421 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5092 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4906 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8169 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6731 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5369 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 318,10 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,3170 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3535 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5105 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 955,02 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4705 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,579 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 77,3719 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,024 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,1617 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,1779 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,7135 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1364

JPY

Japanese yen

123,15

DKK

Danish krone

7,4417

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80728

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2575

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0884

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4546

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,025

HUF

Hungarian forint

312,28

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2833

RON

Romanian leu

4,4659

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2421

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5092

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4906

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8169

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6731

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5369

KRW

South Korean won

1 318,10

ZAR

South African rand

17,3170

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3535

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5105

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 955,02

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4705

PHP

Philippine peso

52,579

RUB

Russian rouble

77,3719

THB

Thai baht

40,024

BRL

Brazilian real

4,1617

MXN

Mexican peso

20,1779

INR

Indian rupee

75,7135

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 23, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20679 Summary Calendar

RICHARD BAGGETT Petitioner - Appellant

v. NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION Respondent - Appellee

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CV-1277

-------------------- Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Richard Baggett, Texas prisoner # 507596, appeals the denial of FED . R. C IV . P. 60(b) relief and moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) and permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to challenge the district court’s transfer order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his aggravated sexualassault conviction as successive. He has also moved for a threejudge panel.No. 06-20679 -2- The district court’s transfer order that Baggett seeks to challenge is a non-appealable interlocutory order. See Brinar v. Williamson , 245 F.3d 515, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2001). Therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief. See Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi , 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). Because this case presents only Baggett’s appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and is not an appeal from the merits of his habeas petition, no COA is required. See Dunn v. Cockrell , 302 F.3d 491, 492 (5th Cir. 2002). AFFIRMED; COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; IFP DENIED; MOTION FOR THREE-JUDGE PANEL DENIED AS MOOT.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7143

JOHNNY MULL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MR. HENSPATH, Unit Manager; MR. JONES,

Captain; MR. DANIELS, Captain; MR. GATLING,

Sergeant; MR. BATTLE; SERGEANT DRAOUGHN; NURSE

TAYLOR; DOCTOR SWANTON; OFFICER WILLIAM; JOHN

DOE; OFFICER TOMADAKIS; LIEUTENANT TUCK; NURSE

SHIELD; NURSE ALLEN; NURSE MCALISTER; NURSE

CARMON; NURSE RICHARDSON; OFFICER RICHARDSON;

SUPERINTENDENT BUMGARNER; OFFICER GILBERT;

OFFICER ARWOOD; DOCTOR SOBEL; NURSE ELEY;

SERGEANT HUNTER; SERGEANT JUSTICE; SERGEANT

WOOD; M. J. HOWARD; MR. JONES, Unit Manager;

SERGEANT STOKLEY; CAPTAIN MURPHY; SERGEANT

HOWARD; JERRY SAUNDERS, Notary; SERGEANT

RILEY; OFFICER SMALL; OFFICER BECKNELL; KEITH

E. WERNER, District Attorney; MR. DORSEY, Unit

Manager; CAPTAIN JOHNSON; OFFICER MAY; OFFICER

CREEF; MR. BARNES, Acting Superintendent;

NURSE SATZ; NURSE RAPER; DENTIST CIANWILLI;

OFFICER TYNCH; DR. ANDERSON; NURSE BUCHANAN;

OFFICER RUSSELL; OFFICER STEWART; SERGEANT

WHITAKER; DOCTOR BASSETT; OFFICER WYNN; MR.

CASTELOW, Unit Manager; MS. BRYANT; OFFICER

CLARK; JANE DOE; MR. CARTER, Unit Manager,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-99-373-5-HO)
2

Submitted: January 11, 2000 Decided: February 8, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Mull, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Mull appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion. See Mull v.

Henspath, No. CA-99-373-5-HO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 10, 1999). We affirm

the order on the reasoning of the district court but modify it to

provide that the dismissal of Mull’s complaint is without

prejudice. In addition, we deny Mull’s motions for appointment of

counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
#### Swift vs. Cornes.

*Judgment in justice’s court, what constitutes*— Bevenue *stamp*— Notice *of appeal.*

1. Ia aa action of unlawful detainer against a tenant holding over after expiration ' of his term, the jury in a justice’s court found “in favor of the plaintiff,” and the justice merely made an entry that “ the court renders judgment according to the verdict.” *Ildd,*that there was no judgment.

2. An appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace should not be dismissed because there is no revenue stamp on the notice of appeal.

3. But where an appeal was improperly dismissed on that ground, the judgment of dismissal is nevertheless affirmed on its appearing that there was properly no judgment in the justice’s court to appeal from.

ERROR to the Circuit Court for *Dane*County.

*J. C.*HopJdns, for plaintiff in error.

*Wm. Powell*and *R. & C. T. Walceley,*for defendant in error.

Dixon, C. J.

The defendant in error, Cornes, commenced an action of unlawful detainer against *Swift*in a justice’s court, to recover possession of certain premises, which, it was alleged, *Swift*was holding over after the expiration of the term for which they had been let to him. Upon trial before the justice and a jury, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff in these words: “We, the jury, find a judgment in favor of the plain*398tiff.” The justice thereupon made an entry in his docket in these words: “ Jury returned a written verdict in favor of plaintiff — on file. Court renders judgment according to verdict.” This is the only entry purporting to be the entry of judgment before the justice. *Swift*appealed to the circuit court, where, upon motion of *Comes,*his appeal was dismissed for want of a revenue stamp upon the notice of appeal, and then this writ of error was sued out upon the judgment of dismissal. Although we cannot approve the reason for which the circuit court dismissed the appeal, yet we are of opinion that the decision was right, and must be sustained upon another ground. It is, that there was no judgment before the justice of the peace, from which an appeal could be taken. The statute requires the justice in such cases “ to enter judgment for the plaintiff, to have restitution of the premises,” &c. The entry in this case is not a judgment. It is simply a void proceeding. *Beemis v. Wylie,*19 Wis., 318, and cases there cited.

*By the Court.*— Judgment of dismissal affirmed.
# C_2015279EN.01000101.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 279/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 270, 17.8.2015

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 262, 10.8.2015

OJ C 254, 3.8.2015

OJ C 245, 27.7.2015

OJ C 236, 20.7.2015

OJ C 228, 13.7.2015

OJ C 221, 6.7.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---