alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOHN BERKLEY, Plaintiff in Error, *vs.*DORCAS JOHNSON, Defendant in Error.

ERROR 10 THE DAME CIEODIT COURT.

In justices’ courts, by appearing and pleading the general issue, the defendant waives ail defects in the process, and every variance between the writ and declaration.

In justices’ courts, formal declarations are not required; a statement of the cause of action for work and labor, and filing a bill of particulars, is sufficient, and after pleading the general issue it is too late to object to a variance between the writ and declaration.

This was an action of assumpsit commenced by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, before a justice of the peace.

The summons required the plaintiff in error to appear before the justice on the 20th day of December, at one o’clock P. M., to answer unto Dorcas Johnson “ in a plea of debt.”

On the return day the parties appeared. The plaintiff stated her cause of action, for work and labor, $13, and filed a bill of particulars. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and asked for an adjournment for one week, which was granted.

On the adjourned day the parties appeared, when the defendant moved for a nonsuit; 1st, on the ground that the plaintiff had not declared in such a manner as to entitle her to recover, and 2d, that the summons required the defendant to appear and answer the plaintiff in a plea of debt, whereas an action of debt did not lie in such a case. The justice amended the writ by inserting the words *“*plea of promise,’’ to which the defendant objected. The case then proceeded to trial, when the defendant left the court. The justice rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $13 damages, and costs.

The cause was afterwards removed to the circuit by certiorari, when the judgment of the justice was affirmed, to reverse which, this writ of error is sued out.

*216Knowlton, *Knapp &*Frinlc, for the plaintiff in error.

Vilas, *Fays &*Pinney, for the defendant in error.

*By the*Court,

Smith, J.

The amendment made by the justice, even if the same had been necessary, was properly made. It could not, by any possibility, work any injury to the defendant. He complained of no surprise, but pleaded the general issue, and on his application the cause was continued one week.

The docket of the justice shows a sufficient statement of the cause of action. It was “ for work and labor,” and the bill of particulars was filed. This was sufficient to inform the defendant of the nature of the plaintiff’s demand, as is quite apparent from his pleading the general issue, and asking the adjournment. On the adjournment day he appeared, not to defend the suit upon its merits, but to interpose technical objections to the plaintiff’s recovery. He was simply “too late.”

Judgment of the court below affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> CT
<CIK> 0000853566
<NAME> BOSTON CAPITAL TAX CREDIT FUND II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,679,145
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,679,145
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,549
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,210,940)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,181,391)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### PAUL B. RICHARDS, Plaintiff in Error. *vs.*ELIHU SPERRY, et al. Defendants in Error.

ERROR TO JVEEEERSOE CIRCUIT COURT.

A verdict in an action of tort against two or more defendants, which only finds the issue as to one without naming him, is too uncertain to authorize judgment.

This was an action of tort commenced by the plaintiff, Richards, against the defendants, before a justice of the peace, and taken by appeal to the circuit court, where a trial was had before a jury who returned the following verdict:

*“*The jury in this cause say they find the defendant guilty, and assess the plaintiff’s damages at twenty-eight dollars.”

Upon this verdict the defendants moved in arrest of judg.ment, and for a new trial. The motion was overruled and the plaintiff had judgment against both defendants.

*J. E. Holmes,*for the plaintiff in error.

*Enos &? Hall,*for the defendants in error.

*By the Court,*

Whiton, C. J.

We shall not notice all the errors relied upon by the plaintiff in error to reverse the judgment in this case, because the verdict is not such an one as could authorize a judgment.

The action was in tort and the jury have found only one of *220the defendants guilty, without any finding as to the other, an.d without designating which defendant they convict. The verdict is in. these words: *“*The jury in this cause say they find the defendant guilty, and assess the plaintiffs’ damages at twenty-eight dollars.” We do not think that this verdict authorized any judgment against either of the defendants, though it appears that one was entered against both for the damages assessed by the jury. 3 Graham & Waterman on New Trials, 1378.

We must therefore reverse it and order a new trial.
Order entered December 5, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01142-CV

ILLA PATRICE RODGERS, Appellant

V.

CREEKWOOD SPRING CREEK, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 001-02010-2016

ORDER

We GRANT Deputy Court Reporter Denise Carrillo’s December 1, 2016 request for an 

extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The time to file the reporter’s record is extended 

to THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
```

[Federal Register: November 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 211)]
[Notices]               
[Page 67348]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02no10-33]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

 
Notice of Meeting

    The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled 
for 18 November 2010, at 10 a.m. in the Commission offices at the 
National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, 
NW., Washington DC, 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include 
buildings, parks and memorials.
    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission 
are available on our Web site: http://www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding 
the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be 
addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at 
the above address; by e-mailing staff@cfa.gov; or by calling 202-504-
2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the 
hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before 
the meeting date.

    Dated: October 27, 2010 in Washington DC.
Thomas Luebke,
AIA Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27616 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
```
# C_2016246EN.01000201.xml

| 7.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7815 — Groupe Bouygues/ADP/Meridiam/Ravinala Airports)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 246/03)

On 1 July 2016, 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 32016M7815. 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 32016M7815. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
---

EXHIBIT 32.1


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





(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bruce A. Williamson, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.





Date: August 10, 2009
By:
/s/ BRUCE A. WILLIAMSONBruce A. Williamson
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00066-CR

VERBA FELICIA PETERSON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1452670R

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

On February 17, 2017, appellant Verba Felicia Peterson filed a notice of 

appeal from her conviction for falsely holding herself out as a lawyer in case 

number 1452670R, which had been entered that same day. See Tex. Penal 

Code Ann. § 38.122 (West 2016). On March 3, 2017, the State moved to 

dismiss case number 1452670R because “[t]he case has been re-filed or re-

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

indicted as Cause No. 1460794.”2 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 32.02 

(West 2006). That same day, the trial court vacated its February 17, 2017 

judgment. We notified the parties that we questioned our jurisdiction over this 

appeal because there was no final judgment of conviction or other order subject 

to appeal and gave the parties an opportunity to show grounds for continuing the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. No party responded to our notice. Because 

there is no final judgment of conviction or other order subject to appeal regarding 

case number 1452670R, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 43.2(f); Sontiago Morales v. State, No. 2-04-550-CR, 2005 WL 

375495, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 17, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication); Hilburn v. State, 946 S.W.2d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 1997, no pet.).

/s/ Lee Gabriel

LEE GABRIEL

JUSTICE

PANEL: GABRIEL, SUDDERTH, and KERR, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 20, 2017

 

2This case number resulted in a conviction for the same offense, which is 

the subject of a separate appeal. Peterson v. State, No. 02-17-00065-CR.
This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see

Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note

that this electronic decision may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the

official paper version filed by the Supreme Court. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 CITY OF RIO RANCHO, 

3 Plaintiff-Appellant,

4 v. No. A-1-CA-37635

5 REUBEN PREUT,

6 Defendant-Appellee.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY

8 George P. Eichwald, District Judge

9 Rio Rancho Office of the City Attorney

10 Gina R. Manfredi

11 Rio Rancho, NM

12 for Appellant

13 Reuben Preut

14 Rio Rancho, NM

15 Pro Se Appellee

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION

17 VANZI, Judge.
1 {1} Summary reversal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed

2 summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary reversal has been filed and

3 the time for doing so has expired. REVERSED.

4 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 _______________________________

6 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

7 WE CONCUR:

8 _________________________

9 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

10 _________________________

11 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
#### JOHN JACOB MYER, Appellant, *vs.*JOSEPH A. GLEISNER, Respondent.

APPEAL PROM THE GREEN CIRCUIT COURT.

An action to enforce a mechanic’s lien is a special proceeding, *mi generis,*of ■which a justice of the peace has no jurisdiction.

In an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien, the question of cost does not depend upon the amount recovered.

If the mechanic has complied with the statute in fixing his lien, he is entitled to his costs in enforcing it.

This was an action brought by the appellant against the respondent to enforce a mechanic’s lien.

The whole question determined, arises upon the charge of the court below, which is stated in the opinion.

*Stevens*& *Kelley*for the Appellant

*Dunwiddie*& *Dexter*for the Respondent.

*By the Court,*

Smith, J.

The only point presented in this case, worthy to be considered, or in any manner essential to the rights of the parties, so far as they have been presented, is in regard to a question of costs.

This was a mechanic’s lien, prosecuted for work and labor in conformity with the statute in such case provided; a special proceeding, unknown to the common law, *sui generis,*to be prosecuted, regulated, determined and executed in strict conformity with the statute enacting the remedy.

*56The lien of the mechanic, or material man does not depend upon the amount of work done, or material furnished, but upon the fact whether he has complied with the statute, giving him the lien. If he has the lien by compliance with the statute, he is entitled to his costs in the process of enforcing it.

It would seem that the Circuit Judge failed to distinguish between this special proceeding under the statute, and an ordinary action within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace for work and labor. The former is the subject matter of a special proceeding under chapter 120 of the revised statutes ; the costs follow the judgment without reference to the amount recovered.

The court below charged the jury that unless they found the plaintiff’s damages to exceed the sum of fifty dollars, they should assess the costs of the suit against the plaintiff and for the defendant. *This*was undoubtedly erroneous. The jury had nothing to do with the costs, which by our practice, except in a very few cases, do not depend upon the finding of the jury.

Judgment reversed.
ROOSEVELT BONNER, JR.

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF I F FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 2874

Opinion filed May 5, 2017.

Amended Petition for Belated Appeal

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Roosevelt Bonner, Jr., pro se

, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief

- Criminal

Appe als, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The amended petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.1
 Page 1 of 1 Page
   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 
 
 In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Radale Imports, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Lee D. Dodson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:
 
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and
 
 (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: July 12, 2004
By:
/s/ Lee D. DodsonLee D. DodsonChief Financial Officer
 
 The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.
Order entered July 1 6 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00776 - CV IN RE LEE ARTHUR WYN N, Relator Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 1

D allas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12 - 24938H



### O RDER Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s July 6, 2018 petition for writ of mandamus
. /s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 16

- 2858

_____________________________
J OSIAH B ETHEL , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Terry Lewis , Judge

. May 7 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OWE , M AKAR , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________ Michael Jerome Titus, Assistant Conflict Counsel
, Office of Regional Conflict Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Josiah Bethel, pro se, Appellant.2 Pamela Jo Bondi
, At torney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 32

 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 eGene, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB Quarterly Report for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ming S. Liu, Chief
Executive Officer and Peter Sheu, Chief Financial Officer, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated: May 12, 2006   By:  /s/ Ming S. Liu
                               Ming S. Liu
                               Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer,
                               and Executive Vice President



Dated: May 12, 2006   By:  /s/ Peter Sheu
                               Peter Sheu
                               Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

SOUTHERN COPPER CORPORATION

Subsidiaries

**(More than 50% ownership)**

 
| ** **  | ** ** | ** **                                      | ** ** | **Percentage of voting**   | ** ** |
|-------------|------------|-------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------|------------|
| ** **  | ** ** | ** **                                      | ** ** | **Securities owned or**    | ** ** |
| ** **  | ** ** | **Name of Company**                             | ** ** | **other bases of control** | ** ** |
| PARENT:     |       | Americas Mining Corporation (Delaware)          |       |                       |       |
|        |       |                                            |       |                       |       |
| Registrant: |       | Southern Copper Corporation (Delaware)          |       |                       |       |
|        |       | Compañia Minera Los Tolmos S.A. (Peru)     |       | 97.31                      |       |
|        |       | Southern Peru  Limited                          |       | 100.00                     |       |
|        |       | Americas Sales  Company, Inc.              |       | 100.00                     |       |
|        |       | Minera Mexico S.A. de C.V.                      |       | 99.95                      |       |
|        |       | SDG Mexico Apoyo Administrativo, S.A. de C.V.   |       | 100.00                     |       |
|        |       | Industrial Minera Mexico S.A. de C.V.           |       | 99.99                      |       |
|        |       | Mexicana de Cananea, S.A. de C.V.               |       | 99.99                      |       |
|        |       | Mexicana de Cobre, S.A. de C.V.                 |       | 99.98                      |       |
|        |       | Mexicana del Arco, S.A. de C.V.                 |       | 100.00                     |       |
|        |       | Mexico Compañía Inmobiliaria, S.A.    |       | 100.00                     |       |
|        |       | Minerales Metálicos del Norte, S.A.        |       | 100.00                     |       |
|        |       | Minera Mexico  Internacional, Incorporated      |       | 100.00                     |       |
|        |       | Servicios de Apoyo Administrativo, S.A. de C.V. |       | 100.00                     |       |
|        |       | Western Copper  Supplies                        |       | 100.00                     |       |

 

Not included inthis listing are subsidiaries, which in the aggregate would not constitute asignificant subsidiary.

 

 

----
EXHIBIT 99.1




                            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 Market Integrity, Inc. on Form 10-QSB
for the period  ending  September  30, 2002,  as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Daniel L.  Hodges,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/ Daniel L. Hodges
Daniel L. Hodges
Chief Executive Officer
February 13, 2003