alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Woodmen of Union of America *v.*Henderson.

4-2728

Opinion delivered November 14, 1932.

*J. D. Shacjdeford,*for appellant.'

*W. Wilson Sharp,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.

This appeal is from a judgment of the Monroe Circuit Court in favor of appellees upon an insurance benefit certificate in which they were named as beneficiaries.

The appellants filed a general demurrer to the complaint, and later a special demurrer, alleging that the court was without jurisdiction of the defendants or either of them. The demurrers were overruled, and, there being no further pleadings by the defendants, the cause proceeded to trial in the absence of the attorney for appellants, and judgment was rendered for the amount of the policy, costs, etc.

*525Appellants moved to vacate the judgment because the action was not filed in the proper connty and the court was without jurisdiction over the defendants.

There is no hill of exceptions in the record, and ap-pellees state in their brief that the testimony showed that they were citizens and residents of Monroe County, where the insured died.

It is urged that the court erred both in overruling appellants’ demurrer and in denying their motion to vacate the judgment. The appellants insist that the court erred in overruling the demurrers, and argue that the court was without jurisdiction because the complaint did not allege that the beneficiaries were residents of Monroe County, and that the insured died there. The allegations of the complaint were sufficient without alleging the county of the residence of the insured and where his death occurred; since in fact he was a resident of that county and his death occurred there, and it could and would have been shown upon a motion to make the complaint more definite and certain, or upon an objection to the jurisdiction of the court on that account. The complaint did not show that the decedent, insured, was not a resident of the county and that his death did not occur there *(%*6150, Crawford & Moses’ Digest), and the evidence introduced disclosed that he was such resident and died there.

Neither was error committed in overruling the motion to vacate the judgment, since no sufficient cause was alleged therefor, and it contained none of the grounds prescribed by the statute for such vacation, nor was any defense to the cause of action alleged therein.

The presumptions are all in favor of the validity of the judgment, and, as already said, there is no hill of exceptions containing the testimony, and the judgment must he affirmed.

It is so ordered.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
NICHOLAS ALSTON, etc., e¢ al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. Case No. 3:18cv247
PHIL PLUMMER, Sheriff of Montgomery JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
County, Ohio, :
Defendant.

ENTRY SETTING IN-CHAMBERS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE CAPTIONED CAUSE

Having not met since the chambers conference held January 17, 2019, and, further, the
Report of the Justice Committee for the Montgomery County Jail having been delivered to the
Montgomery County Commissioners on February 26, 2019, and, by this date, fully digested by
all concerned (hopefully), this Court sets an in-person conference room status conference for
Thursday, June 20, 2019, at 4:00 p.m. During said conference, the Court will invite Montgomery
County Administrator, Michael Colbert, to update those in attendance as to steps the County is
taking with regard to the Montgomery County Jail, whether as a result of the above-referenced
Report, or otherwise. Judging from the last time that Mr. Colbert appeared before our group, I

am certain that he would be responsive to any questions asked by any one of us in attendance.!

' Since the dictation of this Entry, the Sheriff and the Montgomery County Commissioners have announced some
very important news reference the jail. See, Dayton Daily News (front page), April 24, 2019.


This in-person status conference is being set far enough in advance that all concerned
might be able to clear their schedules in order to be able to attend what the undersigned feels will
be a very important discussion.

Plaintiffs attorney, Reem Subei, being located in Toledo, is given the option by the
Court to attend either in person or by telephone conference call. The Court would request Ms.
Subei to advise as to her preference, not later than Monday, June 17, 2019.

Libri Ge

April 24, 2019 WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of record

Michael Colbert, Montgomery County Administrator, 451 W Third St, Dayton, OH 45422

John Theobald, Commission Assistant, 451 W. Third Street, 11th Floor, P.O. Box 972,
Dayton, OH 45422-1110
<PAGE>
                                                                   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 Sholodge, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 14, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"),
Leon Moore, 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:

         (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/ Leon Moore
------------------------------
Leon Moore
Chief Executive Officer
August 27, 2002
<PAGE>
                           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 Sholodge, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 14, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"),
Bob Marlowe, Chief Financial 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:

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

         (4)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/  Bob Marlowe
--------------------------------
Bob Marlowe
Chief Financial Officer
August 27, 2002
<PAGE>   1


                                                                     Exhibit 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

         The following are the Company's subsidiaries as of April 10, 1998. All
beneficial interests are wholly-owned by the Company and are included in the
Company's consolidated financial statements.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         Name of Subsidiary                   State of Organization     Date of Incorporation
         ------------------                   ---------------------     ---------------------
        <S>                                         <C>                       <C>
         F & F Acquisition Corp.                      New York                 9-12-94
         Mount Vernon Distributors, Inc.              New York                 10-15-93
         MA Brands, Inc.                              Delaware                 9-16-97

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Abaxis, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: February 9, 2010
    /s/ Alberto R. Santa InesAlberto R. Santa InesChief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance
#### Sidney Howard GIPSON *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 73-127

501 S.W. 2d 786

Opinion delivered December 10, 1973

*Robert A. Newcomb,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *Alston Jennings Jr.,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Sidney Howard Gipson was convicted by a jury of being an accessory to felony murder. At his trial he was represented by employed counsel, the Honorable Bon McCourtney. No appeal was taken from that conviction. Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief citing eight different reasons why he should be granted relief — among those reasons were that his attorney was inadequate and that he wanted to appeal his case but his attorney would not take the appeal because appellant did not have $2,700.

Upon appellant’s allegation that he was a pauper, the trial court appointed the Honorable Sam Highsmith to represent him in the post conviction proceeding. Thereafter, the allegations of inadequacy of counsel and the failure of counsel to take an appeal were struck from the petition upon motion of appellant, and he was granted time to file an amended petition. The petition was then amended to allege only that the State suppressed evidence favorable to appellant. By stipulation and with the knowledge and approval of appellant that was the only issue before the court at the post-conviction hearing. To reverse the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief, appellant, now appearing by different counsel, contends:

> *697“I. Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel in presenting his Motion to Vacate Sentence Under Criminal Procedure Rule No. I as provided by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

> II. Appellant did not make an intelligent waiver of the points raised in his *pro se*petition for post-conviction relief.”

Since the contentions now made were not at issue in the trial court, the record obviously does not show any facts from which one could arrive at any conclusions. We have a long standing rule that we will not consider on appeal an issue not first raised in the trial court. For that reason we hold that the contentions now made are without merit.

Affirmed.
#### Sandra Alice PEREZ *v.*Salvador PEREZ Jr.

74-19

509 S.W. 2d 531

Opinion delivered May 28, 1974

*Hardin, Jesson & Dawson,*for appellant.

*Warner & Smith,*by: *Lelland Cody Hayes,*for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

The only issue here is the custody of the parties’ two sons — Shawn, now almost four years old, and Shane, about two. The chancellor granted the husband a divorce, on the ground of indignities, and awarded him the custody of the children. For reversal it is argued that the custody award is against the weight of the evidence.

At the trial the issue of custody was primarily one of fact. The couple were married in 1969, when Salvador was 21 and Sandra was 18. The children were born within the next three years, about 19 months apart. In May, 1973, Sandra asked her husband for a divorce and offered him the custody of the two boys. Salvador did not want a divorce and proposed going to a marriage counselor, but Sandra refused. In June the couple signed an agreement prepared by a lawyer, dividing their property and recommending that the husband be awarded custody of the children. When the suit was filed, however, Sandra changed her mind and sought custody.

According to the appellee’s proof, Sandra was careless about keeping the infants clean and was inattentive in other respects. During the pendency of the suit she had temporary custody, but she would leave the children with her parents or, *640if they were not available, with the appellee. Sandra denied part of the appellee’s charges, but she admitted that it was her idea to give Salvador the children in the first place and that at the time of the trial she had a “crush” on an older man who worked at the plant where she was employed. There is no proof of immorality on her part.

Although our decisions tend to favor the mother when the children are very young, there is no inflexible rule giving her the right of custody. We have said that in no type of case do the personal observations of the chancellor mean more then they do in a child custody matter. *Wilson*v. *Wilson, 228*Ark. 789, 310 S.W. 2d 500 (1958). In the case at bar the question to be decided is a difficult one, but after a careful study of the record we cannot say that the chancellor’s decree is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. We forgo an extended discussion of the testimony, as being of negligible value as a precedent.

Affirmed.

Harris, C.J., dissents.
Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date:  August 7, 2008
    /s/  Christopher T. HutterChristopher T. HutterVice President, Chief Financial
Officer,
 Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
Exhibit 32

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of United Retail Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), we, Raphael Benaroya, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and George R. Remeta, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
that based on our 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/RAPHAEL BENAROYARaphael Benaroya
Chief Executive OfficerJune 15, 2005 | 
|                                                                         | 
|/s/GEORGE R. REMETAGeorge R. Remeta
Chief Financial OfficerJune 15, 2005 |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Case No. 1:01-cv- 116

(Judge Sandra S. Beckwith)

Plaintiff

ORDER GRANTING EIGHTH MOTION

TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF

FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT

OF EXPENSES TO RECEIVER

STEPHEN G. DONAHUE, and

DONAHUE SECURITIES, INC.

Defendants.

This action comes before the Court on the Eighth Motion to Approve Payment of Fees

and Reimbursement of Receiver filed December 6, 2005 and the memorandum in support thereof

and the pleadings and papers of record in this action.

The Court is of the opinion that said motion is well taken and should be granted and

therefore it is hereby

ORDERED, that the motion is granted and payment by the Receiver of fees and

reimbursement of expenses to Ulmer & Berne, LLP for the period of November l , 2003 through

January 20, 2004 in the amount of $1 ,302.00 and for reimbursement of expenses incurred during

the same period in the amount of $191.57 for a total of $1 57 is approved; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Receiver pay said total of$1 493.57 to Ulmer & Berne LLP out of

funds in the hands of the receiver.

SO ORDERED.

Sandra S. Beckwith

United States District Judge

Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 114-3 Filed 12/06/2005 Page 1 of 2
Submitted by:

Isl Richard Boydston

Richard Boydston (22360)

Attorney for Michael R. Barrett, Receiver

Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC

255 East Fifth Street #2800

Cincinnati, OH 45202-4728

phone: 513.455.7663

fax: 513.762. 7963

email: rb2(illgdm. com

641456 I

Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 114-3 Filed 12/06/2005 Page 2 of 2
#### McCoy v Hygrade Food Products Corporation,

No. 90688.

In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. MCR 7.302(F)(1). Court of Appeals No. 130322.
CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PowerSecure International, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:




---



##### 



5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:  November 5, 2009
    /s/ Sidney HintonSidney HintonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         882074
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         27906000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10901000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               39128000
<PP&E>                                         244532000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 107045000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 183387000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          24558000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       239000
<OTHER-SE>                                     52563000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   183387000
<SALES>                                        11195000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               11195000
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12791000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2090000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3686000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1273000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2413000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2413000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.10)
        



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

         The following are the Company's subsidiaries as of April 18, 1997. All
beneficial interests are wholly-owned by the Company and are included in the
Company's consolidated financial statements.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
             Name of Subsidiary                      State of Organization           Date of Incorporation
             ------------------                      ---------------------           ---------------------

<S>                                                         <C>                             <C>
       F & F Acquisition Corp                               New York                         9-12-94

       Mount Vernon Distributors, Inc.                      New York                        10-15-93
</TABLE>
<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 Aethlon Medical, Inc. Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, James A. Joyce, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Accounting 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:

1. Such quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2. The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Aethlon Medical, Inc.

Date: August 14, 2008

By: /s/ James A. Joyce
    -----------------------
    James A. Joyce
    Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Aethlon Medical, Inc. and will be
retained by Aethlon Medical, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.