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

4-8768

217 S. W. 2d 827

Opinion delivered February 28, 1949.

*Wm. J. Kirby,*for appellant.

*Heartsill Ragon,*for appellee.

George Rose Smith, J.

The real property involved in this case was owned by.Frederick Sckmuck at the time of his death'in 1925. His widow, Kate Schmuck, *731occupied it as her homestead until her own death in 1947. The property forfeited to the State for nonpayment of the 1932 taxes. In 1939 appellant Schuman purchased it from the State, and on February 6, 1940,; he conveyed to appellant Kaplan.

The appellees, heirs of Frederick Schmuck, brought this action to cancel the State’s deed to Schuman and Schuman’s deed to Kaplan, as clouds on their title. Among other contentions appellees rely on Kate Schmuck’s adverse possession from the date of Schuman’s purchase until her death — a period of more than seven years — as defeating any claim of title Kaplan might have. This, issue is determinative of the case. Although Mrs. Schmuck’s possession under her homestead right was not adverse to the heirs’ interest, it was adverse to the appellants and extinguished whatever title they acquired from the State. In *Johnson*v. Johnson, 106 Ark. 9, 152 S. W. 1017, we held that the widow’s possession by virtue of her dower and homestead rights may be adverse to the title of a third person and inures to the benefit of the heirs. The same principle applies to! possession under the homestead right alone.

Appellants insist that the running of the statute was interrupted by the filing of an ejectment suit by Schuman against Kate Schmuck on March 21, 1940, the action having been allowed to pend without final hearing until it was abated by Mrs. Schmuck’s death. But a grantee’s right to rely, by privity of contract, upon his grantor’s conduct is limited to instances in which the grantor asserted claim to the same title that passed to the grantee. Here Shuman filed suit in his own name after conveying, to Kaplan by quitclaim deed; so it cannot be said that his complaint amounted to an assertion of the title then vested in Kaplan.

Affirmed.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 2 A0 68 2 . EDW ARD TYRONE RI DLEY v . DAVI D ATKI N S.

On Oct o b er 6

, 2 02 1

, t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered an o rd er d i s m i s s i n g an “ Ex p ed i t ed

Em e r ge ncy Pet i t io n fo r a W ri t o f M an d am u s ” fi l ed by p ri s on er Ed ward Ty ro n e Ri d l ey

ag ai n s t Dav i d At k i n s

. Ri d l ey t h en fi l ed b ot h an ap p li cat i o n fo r a d i s cret i on ary ap p eal

an d a n o ti ce o f ap p eal fro m t h e o rd er. W e d en i ed Ri d l ey ’ s d i scret i o nary ap p l i cat i o n

o n t h e m eri t s

. See Cas e No

. A2 2 D0 1 1 3 (No v

. 1 2

, 2 0 2 1). Th is cas e i s t h e d i rect

ap p eal , wh i ch Ri d l ey

fi l ed o n Oct o b er 1 9, 2 0 2 1

. Th i s Co u rt ’ s d en i al o f Ri dl ey ’ s d i scret i o nary ap pl i cat i o n co n s ti t ut es a d eci s i o n

o n th e m eri t s

. S e e E l r o d v. S u n f l o wer Mea d

ows Dev., LLC

, 3 2 2 Ga. Ap p

. 6 6 6

, 6 7 0

(4 ) (7 4 5 SE2 d 8 4 6 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (“ wh en t h i s Co u rt ex am i n es a req u es t fo r a d i s cret i o n ary

ap p eal

, i t act s i n an erro r-co rrect i n g m o de s u ch t h at a d en i al o f t h e ap p l i cat i o n i s o n

t h e m eri t s , a n d t h e o r d e r d en y i n g t he ap p li cat i o n i s res ju d i cat a wi t h res pect t o t h e

s u b s t an ce o f t h e req ues ted rev i ew”) (p u n ct u at io n o m it ted ). Acco rd i n g l y , Ri d l ey i s

b arred fro m ch al l en gi n g t h e Oc t o b e r 6 o rd er by way o f t hi s di rect ap p eal

. See

No r t hwes t S

o ci a l & Ci vi c Cl u b v. Fr a n kl i n , 2 76 Ga. 8 5 9, 86 0 (5 8 3 SE2 d 8 58 ) (2 0 0 3 );

Ho o k v. Ber

g en , 2 8 6 G a. Ap p

. 2 5 8

, 26 1 (1 ) (6 49 SE2 d 3 1 3 ) (2 0 0 7 ). Th i s di rect ap p eal

i s t herefo re DISM ISSED. April 27, 2022C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.
W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 04/27/2022
| (1)   | the                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Skinvisible, Inc. for the year ended                December 31, 2005 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the                year                ended December 31, 2005, fairly presents in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of Skinvisible,                Inc. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  By:    | /s/                Terry Howlett                                                                         |   |
|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  Name:  |  Terry                Howlett                                                                       |
|  Title: |  Principal                Executive Officer,Principal                Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:  |  March                29, 2006                                                                      |
SOLD BY WINSTON TOWERS 300 ASSOCIATION TO GROUP OF FRIENDS, LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2099

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 09, 2017

ORDERED that appellee's motion to dismiss appeal is granted, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed. *See**Kogan v. Mildenberger*, 127 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ; *Fascetti v. Fascetti*, 795 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

LAGOA, EMAS and SCALES, JJ., concur.
Eric GOMEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Mike SCOTT, Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3584

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus is denied.
A.V., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2401

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NEW PARKLAND GROUP, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. CITY OF BONITA SPRINGS, FL, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3638

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul Castillo RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6863

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 14, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Raul Castillo Ramos, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Ronald Baldwin, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; James Marton Trusty, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Ap-pellee.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

*817Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Raul Castillo Ramos seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying rehef on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies rehef on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies rehef on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ramos has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 99.3

               CERTIFICATIONS 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 ePHONE Telecom, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Carmine Taglialatela, Jr., President and 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.       To the best of my knowledge and belief, the Report fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934; and

2.       To the best of my knowledge and belief, the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

\s\ Carmine Taglialeta, Jr.
---------------------------
Carmine Taglialatela, Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer


April 15, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0059 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. ROBERT AYRES DASILVA,

Defendant and Appellant.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 26, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s Reply brief on appeal. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 20 2023

09/20/2023
William Aloysius LOWE, DOC# D90907, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4291

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 11, 2018.

William Aloysius Lowe, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Robrielle Kory CHAPMAN v. Quintress Renee CHAPMAN

2160356

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### David Edward CRAWLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John C. COMBS, Assistant Warden—Wallens Ridge State Prison, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6386

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

David Edward Crawley, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

PER CURIAM:

David Edward Crawley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. §. 1983-(2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Crawley’s motion for appointment of counsel and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Crawley v. Combs,*No. 7:16-cv-00172-MFU-RSB, 2017 WL 780845 (W.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

' *AFFIRMED*
#### Burk N. ASHFORD, aka California Sun, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alex PADILLA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-17417

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 24, 2017

Burk N. Ashford, Pro Se

George Waters, AGCA-Offiee of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Burk N. Ashford, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising from his California trademark renewal application. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc.,*504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ashford’s due process claim because Ash-ford failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a deprivation of a constitutionally protected property interest. *See Wright v. Riveland,*219 F.3d 905, 913 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth elements of a procedural due process claim).

To the extent that Ashford claimed he was entitled to trademark renewal under California law, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim. *See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,*484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988)) (where all federal claims are eliminated before trial, courts generally should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims); *Tritchler v. County of Lake,*358 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Ashford’s request for judicial notice and motion for sanctions, filed on October 27, 2016, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6387** 

HUGH MAURICE ALLEN WADE , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. WENELISA NAVARRO, M.D.; ISAIAS TESSEMA, M.D.; ERWIN ALDANA, M.D. , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from th e United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Alexander Williams, Jr. , District Judge. ( 8:09

- cv - 01985

- AW )

Submitted : August 19, 2011 Decided: August 24, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Hugh Maurice Allen Wade, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton Andrews, Katrina J. Dennis, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIA M: Hugh Maurice Allen Wade seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order granting D efendants’ motion to dismiss . The notice of appeal was received in the district court shortly after expiration of the appeal period. Because Wade is incarcerated, the notice is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). The record does not reveal when Wade gave the notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to obtain this information from the parties and to determine whether the filing was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack . The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED
Russell CHARLES and Con Sandra Charles v. MOORE PETROLEUM, INC., Power Petroleum, Inc., and Moore Properties, LLC

NO. 2018-C-0456

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 11, 2018

*568Denied.
Lois J. TATE v. TOURO INFIRMARY, et al

No. 2018-C-0558

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 15, 2018

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

Writ denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons:

I would grant this writ application to reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in accordance with this Court's holding in *Gilliam v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.* , 240 La. 697, 124 So.2d 913 (1960). In my view, plaintiff has raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendant lessor knew or should have known of the conditions of the leased premises that allegedly led to the plaintiff's injuries.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6635

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BERNARD GIBSON, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR94-454-PJM) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 26, 2000Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Bernard Gibson, Sr., appeals from the district court’s orderdenying his motion for discovery of the commencement and termination dates of the grand jury that indicted him; the discovery motion was filed in connection with his motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit
      4.6**




**SUMMARY
      OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION**




The
      following is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the
      non-employee directors of Commtouch Software Ltd. (the “Company”) for services
      as directors, which is subject to modification at any time by the board of
      directors.





Non-employee
      directors do not receive annual cash compensation. Directors are granted stock
      options, with new directors receiving an initial grant of 150,000 options and
      continuing directors receiving an “evergreen” option grant of 50,000 options.





Other
      than the foregoing option grants and reimbursement of expenses, the Company
      does
      not compensate its directors for serving on its board of directors.
<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 Form 10-K of NaviSite, Inc. (the
"Company") for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Arthur P. Becker, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.


Date: October 28, 2005                 By: /s/ Arthur P. Becker
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Arthur P. Becker
                                           Chief Executive Officer and President
EX PARTE William DONALDSON

CR-16-0491

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of MedSource Technologies, Inc.:*

                                             Jurisdiction of
                Subsidiary                     Organization
------------------------------------------------------------
MedSource Technologies, LLC                      Delaware
   Brimfield Precision, LLC                      Delaware
   Hayden Precision Industries, LLC              Delaware
   Kelco Acquisition LLC                         Delaware
   MedSource Technologies Newton, Inc.           Delaware
   MedSource Technologies Pittsburgh, Inc.       Delaware
   MedSource Trenton, Inc.                       Delaware
   The MicroSpring Company, LLC                  Delaware
   National Wire and Stamping, Inc.              Colorado
   Portlyn, LLC                                  Delaware
   Tenax, LLC                                    Delaware
   Texcel, Inc.                               Massachusetts
   Thermat Acquisition Corp.                     Delaware

*Subsidiaries of subsidiaries are indicated by indentation.
L.M.N., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3136

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.