alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rawls & Rawls, *et al. v.*J. T. Scott & Son.

*Assumpsit.*

(Decided June 13, 1907.

44 South. 386.)

*Appeal; Setting Anido Verdict.*— An order setting aside a verdict because contrary to the evidence will not be reviewed, on appeal, unless the evidence in the transcript plainly and palpably supports the verdict.

Appeal from Coffee Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

Assumpsit by T. J. Scott & Son against Rawls & Rawls and others. From a judgment setting aside the verdict for defendant and granting plaintiffs a new trial, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

O. C. Doster, I-I. L. Martin, and Sollie & Kiricland, for appellant.

The court improperly granted a new *trial.*— Cobb *r. Mu-lone,*92 Ala. 630; *Holland v. Howard.,*105 Ala. 588; *Perry r. King,*117 Ala. 537'. The proof as to' the consideration of the note was properly admitted. *—Pam say*r. *Young,*69 Ala. 157.

J. F. Sanders, for appellee.

Unless the evidence plainly and palpably supports the verdict, the lower *310court will not be reversed for setting it *aside.*— Merrill *v. Brantley,*133 Ala. 538; *Cobb v. Malone,*92 Ala. 630. The court erred in the admission of certain testimony with reference to the consideration of the note inconsistent with and different from that expressed therein.-— *Drennen v. Satterfield,*119 Ala. 14; *Avery v. Miller,*86 Ala. 498; *Hearst v.*Johnson, 96 Ala. 130; *Murphy v. Branch Bank,*16 Ala. 90. Under the facts in this case, the payment set up did not operate as a discharge of the balance due *defendant.*— Mamasas *v. Henry,*96 Ala. 454; *Eufaula Bank v. Passmore,*102 Ala. 270; *Hodges v. Tenn. Imp. Co.,*123 Ala. 574; *Stegall v. Wright,*38 South. 844.

DENSON, J.

This suit is based on a note for $500 executed by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The material defense set up was that before the commencement of the suit the defendants paid to plaintiffs $1,750 in full settlement of all demands held by plaintiffs against defendants, including the note sued on. The contested fact on the trial was whether or not the note sued on was included in the alleged settlement, and on the issue the evidence was sharply in conflict. The jury found in favor of the defendants; but the court, on motion made by the plaintiffs, on the ground, among others, that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, set aside the verdict and granted a new trial. From the judgment setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial the appeal was taken.

The trial judge had the witnesses before him, and heard their testimony and observed their manner of testifying, and therefore had better opportunity for pronouncing upon its weight and convincing power than we have. In.other words, he had evidence before him that-is not before us, and could not be brought here. Upon *311an examination of the evidence in the record we cannot say that it is plainly and palpably in favor of the verdict, and we will not reverse the judgment setting aside the verdict granting a new *trial.*— Smith *v. Tombigbee & Northern Ry. Co.,*141 Ala. 332, 37 South. 389.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and Anderson, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of  International Industrial Enterprises for the year ended December 31, 2008, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:  (1)the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of International Industrial Enterprises for the year ended December 31, 2008 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-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of International Industrial Enterprises.  By:/s/ David RogersName:David RogersTitle:Principal Executive Officer,
and DirectorDate:September 9, 2009By:/s/ David RogersName:David RogersTitle:Principal Financial OfficerDate:September 9, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             754
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7990
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1290)
<INVENTORY>                                       8711
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,520
<PP&E>                                           39728
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (32875)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   51910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            22331
<BONDS>                                            992  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                       28506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     51910
<SALES>                                          10762
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 10762
<CGS>                                             6845
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    14604
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (27)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4135)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4141)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4141)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.51)
        

</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 12

- 00341

- CV
CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS CARLOS H. CASCOS, SOPHIA BENAVIDES, JOHN

WOOD, DAVID A. GARZA AND EDNA TAMAYO v. FRANK A. TOMPKINS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE, AND CAROLYN TOMPKINS YOUNG

On a ppeal from the 138th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2009

- 10

- 5624

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the c ase should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 50% against appellant and against a ppell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. October 24, 2013

.
Rajeshwar Singh YADAV, et ux., petitioners, v. TOWNSHIP OF WEST WINDSOR, NEW JERSEY, et al.

No. 12-1431.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12




BOEING CAPITAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
Computation of Ratio of Income to Fixed Charges


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                   Nine months ended
                                                                     September 30,
(Dollars in millions)                                              2000          1999
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                           <C>            <C>
INCOME:
   Income before provision for income taxes                   $     103.5    $      78.2
   Fixed charges                                                    168.0           98.3
                                                              ------------------------------
   Income before provision for income taxes and fixed charges $     271.5    $     176.5
                                                              ==============================

FIXED CHARGES:
   Interest expense                                           $     165.4    $      95.7
   Preferred stock dividends                                          2.6            2.6
                                                              ------------------------------
                                                              $     168.0    $      98.3
                                                              ==============================

Ratio of income before provision for income taxes and fixed
   charges to fixed charges                                         1.62           1.80
                                                              ==============================
</TABLE>
Matthew G. LAVOIE, petitioner, v. MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 12-9324.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied.
NUMBER 13-23-00240-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JIMMY CERVANTES, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 107th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña 

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

Appellant filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal a judgment in trial court 

cause number 2021-DCR-84-A. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Upon review of the documents filed, the trial court has certified that this “is a plea

bargain case, and the [d]efendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).

On June 7, 2023, the Court ordered appellant’s counsel to review the record and 
2

determine whether appellant had a right to appeal. On June 21, 2023, appellant’s counsel 

responded stating that the notice of appeal was filed only out of an abundance of caution. 

Appellant’s counsel, after reviewing the record and speaking with trial counsel, reached 

the conclusion that the trial certificate was correct, and that appellant does not have the 

right of appeal.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed 

if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1, 44.3. Accordingly, this case is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction. 

CLARISSA SILVA

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

29th day of June, 2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**In the Matter of**

**LARRY CHARLES MILLER**

**PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: No. 129 DB 2014 (No. 16 RST 2015)** 

**Attorney Registration No. 43276** 

**(Formally Philadelphia)**

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 25 th**  **day of February, 2015, the Report and Recommendatio n of**  **Disciplinary Board Member dated February 11, 2015, is a pproved and it is ORDERED**  **that Larry Charles Miller, who has been on Administra tive Suspension, has never been**  **suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he ha s the moral qualifications,**  **competency and learning in law required for admission t o practice in the**  **Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to act ive status as a member of the**  **Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation**  **and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petit ioner.**
Allan PARMELEE, petitioner, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al.

No. 12-9350.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3857-3858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1241]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 11287-001 Alaska]


Lace River Hydro; Surrender of Preliminary Permit

January 12, 1995.
    Take notice that Lace River Hydro, Permittee for the Lace River 
Project No. 11287, has requested that its preliminary permit be 
terminated. The preliminary permit for Project No. 11287 was issued 
November 9, 1992, and would have expired October 31, 1995. The project 
would have been located on an unnamed lake and creek in the first 
Judicial District on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska.
    The Permittee filed the request on January 4, 1995, and the 
preliminary permit for Project No. 11287 shall remain in effect through 
the thirtieth day after issuance of this notice unless that day is a 
Saturday, Sunday or holiday as described in 18 CFR 385.2007, in which 
case the permit shall remain in effect through the first business day 
following that day. New applications involving this project site, to 
the extent provided for under 18 CFR 

[[Page 3858]]
part 4, may be filed on the next business day.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-1241 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Frederick BAGLEY, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 13-6465.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.
Exhibit 31.1    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Stephen E. Cox, certify that:  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Cox Distributing, Inc.  1. 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 annual report;  2. 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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  3. I am the Companys certifying officer and am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company is made known to me, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the Company'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 over financial reporting.  4. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors:  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 27, 2008 By: /s/   Stephen E. Cox Name:  Stephen E. Cox Title: Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Daniel K. CHESTANG, petitioner, v. D.K. SISTO, Warden.

No. 13-6233.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
AMAZON.COM LLC, et al., petitioners, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, et al.

No. 13-259.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.
**Exhibit 33.1**

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB SERVICING            CRITERIA**

U.S. Bank Trust National Association (the "Trustee"), in respect of the            STRATS(SM) Trust for BNSF Funding Trust I Securities, Series 2007-2, is responsible for            assessing compliance as of December 31, 2007 and for the period from and including            January 1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting            Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities            and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB (the "Applicable Servicing            Criteria").

The Trustee has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing            Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Trustee has complied, in            all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31,            2007 and for the Reporting Period.

Ernst & Young LLP, CPA, an independent registered public accounting            firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the            Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2007 and for the Reporting Period            as set forth in this assertion.

U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee

 

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                           |   |   |      |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                           |   |   |      |
| By:    | /s/                            Janet                            O'Hara                     |   | Date:  | 3/28/2008 |
|   | Name: Janet O'Hara

Title:   Assistant Vice President                                                                                                                                |   |   |      |

 

 

 

 

----
Charles Todd STOKES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7135.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

AMBER RAEDER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No. 3:12-cv-843-PSS-CAN

)

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING )

PHARMACY, INC. a/k/a NEW )

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER; )

AMERIDOSE, LLC; ALAUNUS )

PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; BARRY )

CADDEN; LISA CADDEN; )

and GREGORY CONIGLIARO, )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANT ALAUNUS PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant, Alaunus Pharmaceutical, LLC (“Alaunus”), by counsel, moves to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Complaint, as to Alaunus, with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6). As fully set forth in Alaunus’s accompanying brief, simultaneously filed herewith, 

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to set forth a viable claim for relief and must be dismissed. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant Alaunus Pharmaceutical, LLC respectfully requests that 

Plaintiff’s Complaint, as to Alaunus, dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

case 3:12-cv-00843-PPS-CAN document 16 filed 02/06/13 page 1 of 2
2

LEWIS WAGNER LLP

By: /s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo

DINA M. COX, #18590-49

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO, #28058-49

ROBERT M. BAKER IV, #25471-49

JANELLE M. KILIES, #30708-49

Attorneys for Defendant Alaunus Pharmaceutical, 

LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on February 6, 2013 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to the 

following: 

Douglas A. Mulvaney

STUTSMAN & MULVANEY

1300 Cassopolis Street

P.O. Box 1337

Elkhart, Indiana 46515

/s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200

Indianapolis, IN 46202

Phone: (317) 237-0500

FAX: (317) 630-2790

kshaheed-diallo@lewiswagner.com

Q:\NECC\17 - Raeder\Federal Court Action\Alaunus MTD.docx

case 3:12-cv-00843-PPS-CAN document 16 filed 02/06/13 page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

**LETTER FROM INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM REGARDING**

**UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION**

 

**LETTER IN LIEUOF CONSENT FOR REVIEW REPORT**

 

April 24, 2006 

 

Boeing Capital Corporation 

500 Naches Avenue SW, 3rd Floor 

Renton, Washington 

 

We haveperformed a review, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information of Boeing Capital Corporation and subsidiaries for the periods ended March 31, 2006and 2005, as indicated in our report dated April 24, 2006; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. 

 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, is incorporated byreference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-55846 and 333-83208 on Form S-3. 

 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified byan accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

 

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP