alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ketchum *v.*Johnson.

Opinion delivered April 14, 1930.

*Berry II. Randolph*and *J. II. Long,*for appellant.

*Witt <& Witt,*for appellee.

McKaney, J.

This is a replevin action, brought in the justice court by appellant against appellees for the possession of one sow and five pigs of the value of $30. The venue was changed to the court of common pleas, where, on-a trial, judgment was entered for appellees, and an appeal was taken to the circuit court, where, on a trial *de novo,*judgment was again entered for appel-lees. The court instructed a verdict for appellees for the possession of the hogs, or their value, and submitted the question as to their value to the jury, and the jury found them to be of the value of $30, and judgment was entered accordingly.

For a reversal of the case, appellant contends that the, court erred in refusing to submit the case to the jury as to appellant’s right to the possession of the hogs. The undisputed proof in the case- shows that appellee, Johnson, found the hogs in controversy running at large and in his inclosure, and that he impounded them under the act of March 20, 1923, p. 1130, Special Acts of 1923, gave the notices as required by that act five days before the date of sale, and, nobody appearing to claim the hogs, he offered them for sale as per the notices. There being no bidders, he bid them, in himself for the amount due by the terms of said act at ten cents per day per hog. He thereafter sold the hogs to appellee, Suit. More than *597one year after that time appellant brought this action to replevin the hogs, and made no tender of the amount the law provides shall be paid to one who takes up stock in a stock law district. The court therefore held that appellant was not entitled to replevin the hogs until he had tendered the -amount provided by law for their keep. As stated, this evidence is undisputed, and the court was correct in so holding. It appeared that appellant had obtained possession of the hogs by reason of his replevin bond, given at the time the action was instituted. The court correctly ordered him to return the hogs to appel-lees or pay them their value, which the jury found to be $30. It will therefore be seen that there was no question to be submitted to the jury, as the undisputed evidence showed that no tender had been made.

Appellant says, however, that there is no sufficient proof of the notices as required by said act. Appellee, Johnson, testified that he posted two of them, and John Manser testified that he posted the other one. Manser says he put up one of the notices, although he did not read it. We think this fact was -therefore established by the undisputed testimony.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 26, 2014

NO. 03-14-00569-CV

Mark Louis Nelson, Appellant

v.

Crystal Dawn Stark-Nelson, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GOODWIN

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on June 11, 2014. Appellant has

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the 

motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
r T; 

rv3 

V 

- 1r- nrzZ 

gc5o 

CO 

JOHNNY L. DUPREE, PH.D. 

MAYOR 

Conndl-Wardl Council-Ward 2 Coimcfl - Ward 3 Coiiiicfl-Ward4 CouncU-WardS 

Kim Bradley Deborah Denard Delgado Carter Carroll Dave J. Ware, 11 Henry Naylor 

February 17,2012 

Mr. Dermis DeVany 

Chief, EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

Office of Aviation 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Hattiesburg-Laurel Regional Airport (PIB) 

Dock DOT-OST-2001-10685 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

We have reviewed the EAS proposals submitted under Docket DOT-OST-2001-10685. We have 

determined that the proposals submitted by Multi-Aero Inc., d/b/a Air Choice One and SeaPort Airlines, 

Inc. for Hattiesburg-Laurel, Mississippi do not meet the statutory requirements of a twin-engine aircraft. 

We have also determined that Citizens Capital Corp. d/b/a Blue Sky Airlines does not have an operating 

certificate. Furthermore, any air service bid to our community that does not have the full support of a 

legacy carrier, through code shaie and joint ticket pricing, will not be practical, marketable or allow our 

air travelers to easily flow through the National Plan of Integrated Airports System. 

We appreciate the interest of these airlines, but do not endorse or support these proposals for subsidized 

essential air service to the communities of Hattiesburg and Laurel, MS. 

We request that the hold-in order that prohibited Mesaba and Pinnacle Airlines d/b/a Delta Connection 

from terminating scheduled airline service to Hattiesburg-Laurel, MS remain in effect until fiarther 

notice, or until such time as a suitable replacement which satisfies the community's needs can be found. 

We would like to thank yoiufor your cooperation and assistance in this matter. 

L/DuPree, Ph.D. 

ity of Hattiesburg 

JLD/kmh 

Tfelephone (601) 545-4501 • Fax (601) 545-4608 

Email mayort^attiesburgms.com • Websitewww.hattiesburgtns.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             536
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (141)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,577
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,475
<PP&E>                                           3,491
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,513)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,085
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,080
<OTHER-SE>                                    (13,444)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,465
<SALES>                                          9,511
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,511
<CGS>                                            5,730
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,730
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,131
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 259
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,391
<INCOME-TAX>                                        43
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,348
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    472
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,820
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Carmike Cinemas,
Inc. (the Corporation) for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Operating Officer (Principal Executive
Officer), each hereby certifies that, to his/her knowledge on the date hereof:

(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 Corporation.



|                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    S. DAVID PASSMAN
III                                                                     
|S. David Passman III                                                                            
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Corporation (Principal Executive
Officer)
|                                                                                                
|March 1, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ANNA M. LEWIS, 

 

 Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:18-cv-677 

 

 -vs- Judge Sarah D. Morrison 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

 : 

 Defendant. 

 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of a Report and Recommendation issued 

by the Magistrate Judge on July 8, 2019. (ECF No. 13). The time for filing objections has passed, 

and no objections have been filed. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and 

Recommendation. For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the decision of 

the Commissioner is REVERSED and this action is REMANDED pursuant to Sentence Four of 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. The 

Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate this case from the docket records of the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Sarah D. Morrison_______________ 

 SARAH D. MORRISON 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 14, 2018

No. 04-17-00013-CV

Mark A. CANTU d/b/a Law Office of Mark Cantu,

Appellants

v.

GUERRA & MOORE, LLP, Carlos L. Guerra, J. Michael Moore and David J. Lumber,

Appellees

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CVQ0001154-D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice 

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice (not participating)

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice (not participating)

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

On January 19, 2018, appellees filed a Motion for En Banc Reconsideration. The motion 

is DENIED.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 14th day of February, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             580
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,342
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           4,501
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  85,130
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         14,071
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    85,130
<SALES>                                         13,099
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,248
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,266
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,830
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,652
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,652
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,652
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.85


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.2**

CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P. 

We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-19652, 33-44103, 33-49724, 33-64323, 33-53542, 333-38166, 333-39584, 333-135194 and 333-137857) of Unit Corporation of the reference to our report for Unit Corporation, which appears in the December 31, 2008annual report on Form 10-K of Unit Corporation. 

/s/ Ryder Scott Company, L.P. 

RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P. 

Houston, Texas

February 24, 2009
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: DAVOL, INC./C.R. BARD, INC.,

POLYPROPYLENE HERNIA MESH PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2846

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO í86)

On August 2, 2018, the Panel transferred 50 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Ohio for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

See 316 F.Supp.3d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2018). Since that time, 310 additional action(s) have been transferred to

the Southern District of Ohio. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the

Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the

actions previously transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and assigned to Judge Sargus.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,

the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the Southern District of Ohio

for the reasons stated in the order of August 2, 2018, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the

Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be stayed 7 days from

the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7íday period,

the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

John W. Nichols

Clerk of the Panel

May 19, 2022 5/20/2022

5/20/2022

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 623 Filed: 05/20/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 7695
IN RE: DAVOL, INC./C.R. BARD, INC.,

POLYPROPYLENE HERNIA MESH PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2846

SCHEDULE CTOí86 í TAGíALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

RHODE ISLAND

RI 1 22í00109 Patton v. Davol, Inc. et al

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 623 Filed: 05/20/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 7696
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

## Filings Instituting Proceedings

*Docket Numbers:*                     RP22-495-000.                

*Applicants:*                     NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC.                

*Description:*                     Compliance filing: NXUS OFO January 2022 Penalty Disbursement Report to be effective N/A.                

*Filed Date:*                     1/25/22.                

*Accession Number:*                     20220125-5084.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. ET 2/7/22.                

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

                    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (                    *https://elibrary.ferc.gov/​idmws/​search/​fercgensearch.asp*) by querying the docket number.                

                    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​efiling/​filing-req.pdf.*                     For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

Dated: January 25, 2022.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-01895 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EX PARTE Stephen WOODS

(In re Stephen Woods v. Tonya Woods)

2160235

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
H. Con. Res. 118 Agreed to November 30, 2022

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR CEREMONY TO PRESENT CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDALS TO UNITED STATES CAPITOL 

POLICE AND OTHERS WHO PROTECTED THE CAPITOL ON 

JANUARY 6, 2021. 

The rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on December 

6, 2022, for a ceremony to present Congressional Gold Medals 

to the United States Capitol Police and others who protected the 

Capitol on January 6, 2021. Physical preparations for the ceremony 

shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the 

Architect of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
**Exhibit 31.2**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

I, Jerry C. Young, as Chief Financial Officer of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc.,certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Da-Lite Screen Company, 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, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on myknowledge, 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 periodspresented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 6, 2008 

 

 

21