alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STURTEVANT *vs.*MILWAUKEE, WATERTOWN & B. V. R. R. CO.

APPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COURT, DODGE COUNTS'.

Heard January 10.]

[Decided May 4, 1860.

*Railroads*— Service *of Process.*

Where the Milwaukee and Watertown Railroad Company had procured an appraisement of damages for locating its railroad track, from which the claimant appealed to the circuit court, hut before the trial in the circuit court took place, the rights of the company became vested in the Milwaukee, Watertown & Baraboo Valley Railroad Company, and the latter company was substituted for the for~ mer company; the notice of substitution was served by letter sent by mail to E. and P. without anything to show that either of them was the attorney of the company; Held, that such notice so served did not give jurisdiction to the court of the latter company, and the judgment against it must be reversed for that reason.

The facts in this case will be gathered from the opinion of the court.

*Billinghurst fy Lewis,*for the respondent.

*Emmons*<§’ *Van Dyke,*for the appellant.

*By the Court,*

Paine, J.

In this case the land of the respondent was taken by the Milwaukee & Watertown R. R. *62Co. for railroad purposes, and the damages were appraised hy commissioners properly appointed. From this appraisal the respondent appealed to the circuit court; and while the appeal was there pending, the appellant-was substituted on motion of the respondent, in place of the Milwaukee & Watertown Co., and the damages assessed and judgment rendered against the appellant. This substitution was made by virtue of section 1, chap. 135, R. S., 1858. Without determining whether this section was intended to allow a party to be substituted as defendant on motion of plaintiff, we think the judgment in this case must be reversed, for the reason that if such substitution may take place, it can only be upon proper notice to the party substituted. Such notice would then stand in the place of process, and without it the court would get no jurisdiction of the person. The record here shows that notice of the motion to substitute was sent by letter to “N. J. Emmons, Esq., at Milwaukee, and to H. L. Palmer, Esq., at Milwaukee,” but there is nothing to show that those gentlemen, or either of them, were in any way connected with the appellant. If either of them had been its general attorney, a proper service upon him would have been good. But as it is, the record shows no service on the appellant, and as there was no appearance for it, the court acquired no jurisdiction over it.

The judgment is reversed, with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2432 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2432

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
amounts received from State-based catastrophe loss mitigation programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 22, 2021

  Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Padilla, and Mr. Tillis) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
amounts received from State-based catastrophe loss mitigation programs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Disaster Mitigation and Tax Parity 
Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM STATE-BASED CATASTROPHE LOSS 
              MITIGATION PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i) and by 
inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:
    ``(h) State-Based Catastrophe Loss Mitigation Programs.--
            ``(1) In general.--Gross income shall not include any 
        amount received by an individual as a qualified catastrophe 
        mitigation payment under a program established by--
                    ``(A) a State,
                    ``(B) a political subdivision or instrumentality 
                thereof, or
                    ``(C) an entity established under State charter,
        for the purpose of making such payments.
            ``(2) Qualified catastrophe mitigation payment.--For 
        purposes of this section, the term `qualified catastrophe 
        mitigation payment' means any amount which is received by an 
        individual to make improvements to such individual's residence 
        for the sole purpose of reducing the damage that would be done 
        to such residence by a windstorm, earthquake, or wildfire.
            ``(3) No increase in basis.--Rules similar to the rules of 
        subsection (g)(3) shall apply in the case of this 
        subsection.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 139(d) is amended by striking ``and qualified'' 
        and inserting ``, qualified catastrophe mitigation payments, 
        and qualified''.
            (2) Section 139(i) (as redesignated by subsection (a)) is 
        amended by striking ``or qualified'' and inserting ``, 
        qualified catastrophe mitigation payment, or qualified''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 11


                     METRIS COMPANIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share


In thousands, except per share amounts            Year Ended December 31,
                                                  -----------------------
                                                 1999       1998      1997
                                                 ----       ----      ----
BASIC:
------

Net (loss) income applicable to common
     stockholders ......................       ($61,646)   $56,248   $38,058
                                               ========    =======   =======

Weighted average number of common shares
    outstanding ........................         38,570     38,464    38,450

Net (loss) income per share ............       ($  1.60)   $  1.46   $  0.99


DILUTED:
--------

Net (loss) income applicable to common
stockholders ...........................       ($61,646)   $56,248   $38,058
                                               ========    =======   =======
Weighted average number of common shares
    outstanding ........................         38,570     38,464    38,450
Net effect of assumed exercise of stock
    options based on treasury stock
    method using average market price ..             --      1,473     2,026
                                               --------    -------   -------
                                                 38,570     39,937    40,476
                                               ========    =======   =======
Net (loss) income per share ............       ($  1.60)   $  1.41   $  0.94
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Annual Report on From 10-KSB of Computerized Thermal
Imaging, Inc. (the "Company") for the Year Ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
V. Secord, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:


(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 and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Richard V. Secord
---------------------
Richard V. Secord
Chief Executive Officer
September 27, 2006

 This certification accompanies the Amendment pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or it
staff upon request.
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 Annual Report of Roomlinx, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form


10−KSB
for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and


Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael S. Wasik,
Chief


Executive
Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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,
the consolidated financial condition and consolidated results of operation of
the Company.





Date:
10/8/08





By:
            /s/ Michael S.
      WasikMichael
      S. WasikChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
#### Pool, Respondent, vs. Lancashire Insurance Company, Appellant.

*November 13*

November *26, 1895.*

*Pool v. MilivauTcee Mechanics’ Ins. Co., ante,*p. 530, followed.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Ashland county: Joi-iN K. Paexsh, Circuit Judge,

*jReversed.*

For tlie appellant there was a brief by *Mylrea, Marchetti*& *Bird,*and oral argument by *W. II. Mylrea.*

*W. L. Windom*and *Gale Bouck,*for the respondent.

Cassoday, O. J.

This caso is substantially the same as *Pool v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Ins. Co., ante,*p. 530, except that the policy is only for $1,000, and the defense of coinsurance is not made. For the reasons given in the opinion filed in that case, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, James H. Kelly, certify that:

         1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Stem
Cell Innovations, Inc.;

         2.       Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;

         3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
report;

         4.       I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and have:

                  a)       designed such disclosure controls and procedures to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

                  b)       evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c)       presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5.       I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

                  a)       all significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal
controls; and

                  b)       any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

         6.       I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there
were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  August 17, 2006

                                       /s/ DR. JAMES H. KELLY
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Chief Financial Officer

                                       24
Exhibit
32.1





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 ASIA CORK INC. on Form 10-Q for the
period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Pengcheng Chen, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





1.
The Report 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 and result of operations of the
Company.




February 11,
      2010By:
            /s/ Pengcheng ChenPengcheng
      Chen,CEO
<SEQUENCE>2
[DESCRIPTION]SUPPLEMENTARY TRUST DATA


                            Supplementary Trust Data



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

<S>                                                                                     <C>
l.  The total amount of cash distributed to Certificateholders in l997, per $l,000
      of Certificates...................................................................$   579.4040


2.  The total amount of the distribution set forth in paragraph l which represents
      principal payments on the Certificates............................................$   531.7702


3.  The amount of outstanding balances in the Accounts which were 30 or more days
      delinquent as of the end of the December l997 Monthly Period......................$ 63,063,455


4.  The total amount of the Monthly Servicing Fee paid to the Servicer
      by the Trust in l997..............................................................$ 26,263,114

</TABLE>


                                       10
# C_2014272EN.01000101.xml

| 20.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7272 — Fortum Corporation/OAO Gazprom/AS Eesti Gaas/AS Vörguteenus Valdus)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 272/01)

On 7 August 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 the English 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 32014M7272. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7272. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
| (1)   | the      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | information      contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of the    Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                             /s/ David A.    Martin                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                             David      A. Martin                                            Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer                                            (Principal      Financial Officer) |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-0700

Filed November 23, 2016

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

BRIAN NATHANIEL SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Annette L. 

Boehlje, District Associate Judge.

Defendant appeals his sentence for willful injury causing bodily injury and 

assault. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau, 

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2

MCDONALD, Judge.

Brian Smith was convicted of two counts of willful injury causing bodily 

injury and one count of assault, in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1, 

708.2(2), and 708.4(2) (2015). He was sentenced to two indeterminate terms of 

incarceration not to exceed five years for the willful injury convictions and thirty 

days in jail for the assault conviction, with all sentences to run concurrent with 

each other.

On appeal, Smith argues the district court abused its discretion in not 

granting his request for suspended sentences. “Sentencing decisions of the 

district court are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor.” State v. 

Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996). Where the defendant does not 

assert the “sentence is outside statutory limits, the sentence will be set aside only 

for an abuse of discretion.” Id. “An abuse of discretion is found only when the 

sentencing court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly 

untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Id. The defendant bears a 

heavy burden in establishing the district court abused its sentencing discretion. 

See State v. Harris, 528 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).

Other than mere disagreement with the sentencing court’s decision, Smith

does not identify the alleged abuse of discretion. We find none. The district 

court recognized it had the discretion to select among several sentencing 

options, considered only relevant factors in imposing sentencing—in particular, 

the defendant’s extensive criminal history—and did not consider any 

impermissible factors in imposing sentence. We thus affirm Smith’s sentences. 

See, e.g., State v. Childs, No. 14-1950, 2016 WL 1130283, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. 
3

Mar. 23, 2016) (affirming challenge to sentence where defendant merely 

disagreed with the sentence); State v. Pena, No. 15-0988, 2016 WL 1133807, at 

*1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2016) (stating “mere disagreement with the sentence 

imposed, without more, is insufficient to establish an abuse of discretion”). 

AFFIRMED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 21, 2016

No. 04-15-00761-CR

Christopher Shaun ORTIZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR11043

Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s motion for full court or panel to act on his motion and motion to abate 

appeal for appointment of counsel are DENIED.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court