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

Atkinson, J.

1. Mrs. C. B. Camp instituted an- action against R. E. Matthews, to foreclose a landlord’s lien for money alleged to have been furnished for making a crop during the year 1913. To this proceeding the defendant filed a counter-affidavit, denying that plaintiff had furnished him any money or supplies or anything to enable him to make a crop during the year 1913. Certain promissory notes were introduced in evidence to show the amount in which the defendant was liable to plaintiff, and which contained the following recital: “This money is to enable me to make my crop for the year 1913.” These notes were dated March 15, 1913, and signed by the defendant. On cross-examination the plaintiff, over objection, testified: “I did not furnish the money as represented by these notes (referring to the notes in evidence) at the time same were executed. I let him have the money in 1911 or in 1912; and the notes in question are renewals of the money I let him have in 1911 or 1912.” The defendant also testified, over objection, as follows: “I borrowed three hundred dollars from plaintiff in 1911 to make a crop for that year. I did not pay it back in the fall of that year, but renewed it for the year 1912, and did not pay it back in 1912, but renewed it for *394the year 1913; and the notes in question are renewals of that debt. The notes in question were given for the money borrowed in 1911.” The objection urged to the admissibility of the evidence was that it tended to vary and contradict the terms of the notes. The court overruled the objection, and, at the conclusion of the evidence, directed a verdict for the defendant. To these rulings the plaintiff excepted. *Held,*that parol evidence was admissible to show the circumstances under which the notes were made, and to explain the consideration and show the year in which the consideration appearing on the face of the notes was actually advanced. *Anderson*v. *Brown,*72 *Ga.*713 (3); *Burke*v. *Napier,*106 *Ga.*327 (32 S. E. 134) ; *Butts*v. *Cuthbertson,*6 *Ga.*166. The evidence objected to did not tend to vary and contradict the terms of the notes.

April 22, 1915.

Lien foreclosure. Before Judge Freeman. Troup superior court. February 6, 1914.

*M. U. Mooty*and *Judson Andrews,*for plaintiff.

*W. A. Post*and *A. H. Thompson,*for defendant.

2. “The special lien of a landlord for money or supplies furnished in making a crop exists, and can be foreclosed as a lien, only on the crops of the year in which the advances are made. A balance of indebtedness for a prior year can not be included in a foreclosure of such a lien, even by agreement of the parties at the beginning of the year that such balance shall be included with the advances of that year.” *Parks*v. *Simpson,*124 *Ga.*523 (52 S. E. 616). The renewal notes given by the defendant could only act as an extension of time on the old indebtedness, and could not be considered as an advancement of money for the year in which they were given.

3. Under the uncontradicted evidence, the judge did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Pish, G. J., absent.*
#### Benson *v.*Hays.

February 20, 1915.

Action for damages. Before Judge Pendleton. Pulton superior court. December 11,1913.

*James L. Key, tor*plaintiff in error.

*Hewlett, Dennis & Whitman,*contra.

Hill, J.

1. Tlie general grounds of the motion for a new trial are not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and, under repeated rulings of this court, will be treated as abandoned.

2. Under the pleadings and evidence in this case, whether or not the plaintiff by the exercise of ordinary care could have avoided the consequences of the alleged negligence of the defendant was a question for the jury. *Miller*v. *Smythe,*95 *Ga.*288 (22 S. E. 532).

3. The grounds of the amended motion for a new trial, which complained in some instances of excerpts from the charge, and in others of omissions to charge without request, and others of refusals of requests to charge, furnish no cause for the grant of a new trial, when considered in the light of the evidence and the entire charge as given.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*
Exhibit 32.3



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 of Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy J. Steinkopf, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Timothy J. Steinkopf                         
|Timothy J. Steinkopf                             
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|March 12, 2004                                   



54
#### In the Matter of Gregory Gorniok, Respondent, v Jessica Zeledon-Mussio, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 257] —

In a child *1013custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), dated August 19, 2011, as, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition to modify a custody and visitation order of the same court (Snellenburg II, J.H.O.), dated January 13, 2010, so as to award him sole legal and physical custody of the subject child.

Ordered that the order dated August 19, 2011, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“ ‘In order to modify an existing custody or visitation arrangement, there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child’ ” *(Matter of Peralta v Irrizary,*76 AD3d 561, 562 [2010], quoting *Matter of Arduino v Ayuso,*70 AD3d 682, 682 [2010]; *see Matter of Francois v Grimm,*84 AD3d 1082, 1082 [2011]; *Matter of Garcia v Fountain,*82 AD3d 979 [2011]). “ ‘Since any custody determination depends to a very great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great respect and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record, or are contrary to the weight of the evidence’ ” *(Matter of Chabotte v Faella,*77 AD3d 749, 749-750 [2010], quoting *Trinagel v Boyar,*70 AD3d 816, 816 [2010]; *see Matter of Francois v Grimm,*84 AD3d at 1082; *Matter of Garcia v Fountain,*82 AD3d at 979).

Here, the Family Court’s determination that there was a change in circumstances since the issuance of the order dated January 13, 2010, and that it was in the subject child’s best interest to award sole legal and physical custody of the child to the father, is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Caravella v Toale,*78 AD3d 828 [2010]; *Matter of McClurkin v Bailey,*78 AD3d 707, 707-708 [2010]; *Matter of Chabotte v Faella,*77 AD3d at 750). Florio, J.P., Balkin, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
<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 Radiologix, Inc. (the
"COMPANY") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"),
I, Stephen D. Linehan, 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, to the best of my knowledge that:

         (1) The 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Stephen D. Linehan
------------------------------------------
Stephen D. Linehan
President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: May 15, 2003






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Radiologix, Inc. and will be retained by Radiologix, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### REALTY IRON WORKS v. HENNEY et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by the Realty Iron Works against John Henney, impleaded.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, without costs. Order filed.
#### In the Matter of Abraham Maldonado, Petitioner, v New York State Department of Correctional Services et al., Respondents.

[946 NYS2d 709]

*1254Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered! in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was escorted to a funeral home to attend his brother’s funeral viewing. Petitioner’s relatives were also present. Upon petitioner’s request to use the bathroom, one of the correction officers searched the bathroom and discovered numerous balloons containing tobacco and other items secreted in the towel holder. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with attempt to possesses excessive tobacco and attempt to smuggle. Following a disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the attempted smuggling charge. The determination was upheld on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Initially, we are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that the gaps in the hearing transcript are so deficient as to preclude meaningful review *(see Matter of Wallace v Prack,*93 AD3d 1056 [2012]; *Matter of Povoski v Fischer,*93 AD3d 963 [2012]). To that end, the misbehavior report and testimony at the hearing, including that of the author of the misbehavior report who investigated the incident and testified that petitioner admitted during an interview* that one of his family members left the tobacco for him, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Borcsok v Selsky,*296 AD2d 678, 678-679 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 616 [2002]), notwithstanding that there is evidence to support a contrary conclusion. Furthermore, it was within the Hearing Officer’s purview to resolve any conflict in the evidence and testimony presented *(see Matter of Nunez v Unger,*93 AD3d 986 [2012]; *Matter of Borcsok v Selsky,*296 AD2d at 679). Finally, petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was biased is not preserved for our review because he did not raise that issue on administrative appeal or in his petition *(see Matter of Ifill v Fischer,*72 AD3d 1367, 1368 [2010]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

*

 According to the Attorney General, the videotaped interview played at the hearing was inadvertently recycled and, therefore, could not be submitted to this Court for review. In any event, the record establishes that the videotaped interview contained no sound recording.
Case: 1:02-cr-00444 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/27/02 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:164

Case: 1:02-cr-00444 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/27/02 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:165
July 3, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MONDRE KETCHUM , Appellant
NO. 14

- 12

- 00464

- CR NO. 14

- 12

- 00465

- CR

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.
We further order this decision certified below for obs ervance.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1027

ANGELO L. BODOY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

FREDERICK D. MITCHEM; EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiffs,

versus

NORTH ARUNDEL HOSPITAL; DAVID MCGUNIGALE,

Individually and in his Official Capacity as

Maintenance Supervisor at North Arundel Hospital; FRANK FLORENTINO, Individually and in

his Official Capacity as Maintenance Supervisor at North Arundel Hospital; CHARLES WILSON, Individually and in his Official Capacity

as Director, Plant Operations Department at

North Arundel Hospital; PHILLIP ENGERS, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Assistant Director, Plant Operations Department

at North Arundel Hospital; T. WYATT MEDICUS,

Individually and in his Official Capacity as

Executive Vice President at North Arundel

Hospital; JAMES WALKER, Individually and in

his Official Capacity as President and Chief

Executive Officer at North Arundel Hospital,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge.

(CA-94-2404-K)
2
3

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 30, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angelo L. Bodoy, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Simpler, Robert H.

Ingle, III, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bodoy v.

North Arundel Hosp., No. CA-94-2404-K (D. Md. Nov. 25, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit
      23.1**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos.
      333-70461, 333-72109, 333-77153, 333-80277, 355-80285, and 333-92295) on Form
      S-8 of our report dated October 6, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial
      statements of Internet America, Inc. and Subsidiaries appearing in this Annual
      Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2007.





/s/
      UHY
      LLP




Houston,
      Texas


September
      27, 2007
Case 1:02-cv-06668   Document 20    Filed 10/10/03   Page 1 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-06668   Document 20    Filed 10/10/03   Page 2 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-06668   Document 20    Filed 10/10/03   Page 3 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-06668   Document 20    Filed 10/10/03   Page 4 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-06668   Document 20    Filed 10/10/03   Page 5 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-06668   Document 20    Filed 10/10/03   Page 6 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-06668   Document 20    Filed 10/10/03   Page 7 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-06668   Document 20    Filed 10/10/03   Page 8 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-06668   Document 20    Filed 10/10/03   Page 9 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-06668   Document 20    Filed 10/10/03   Page 10 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-06668   Document 20    Filed 10/10/03   Page 11 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-06668   Document 20    Filed 10/10/03   Page 12 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-06668   Document 20    Filed 10/10/03   Page 13 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-06668   Document 20    Filed 10/10/03   Page 14 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-06668   Document 20    Filed 10/10/03   Page 15 of 15
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 40 Filed: 09/23/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:326
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 20, 2023

NO. 03-23-00337-CV

Inteleos Corporation, Joan Baker, and Tricia Turner, Appellants

v.

Ultrasafe Ultrasound Diagnostic Services, LLC and Joanna Hall, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA, AND SMITH

DISMISSED ON APPELLANTS’ MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the orders signed by the trial court on February 22, 2023 and 

March 8, 2023. Appellants have 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 appellants shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both 

in this Court and in the court below.
Case: 1:02-cv-00256 Document #: 4 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:10
Case: 1:02-cv-00256 Document #: 4 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:11
Case: 1:02-cv-00256 Document #: 4 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:12
Case: 1:02-cv-00256 Document #: 4 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:13
Case: 1:02-cv-00256 Document #: 4 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:14
Case: 1:02-cv-00256 Document #: 4 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:15
Case: 1:02-cv-00256 Document #: 4 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:16
Case: 1:02-cv-00256 Document #: 4 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:17
Case: 1:02-cv-00256 Document #: 4 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:18
Case: 1:02-cv-00256 Document #: 4 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:19
Case: 1:02-cv-00256 Document #: 4 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:20
Case: 1:02-cv-00256 Document #: 4 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:21
Case: 1:02-cv-00256 Document #: 4 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:22
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Livestock, Forage and Pasture Management Research Unit: El Reno, OK
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area El Reno, Oklahoma Oklahoma and Central Plains Agricultural Research Center Livestock, Forage and Pasture Management Research Unit People & Locations







Lonnie W Parsons
                        Livestock, Forage and Pasture Management Research Unit

                        




                        
                        Agricultural Science Research Technician (Husbandry)
                        Phone: (580) 256-7449
                        
                        
                        Fax: (580) 571-6461(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         554,540
<SECURITIES>                                     1,414
<RECEIVABLES>                                  809,358
<ALLOWANCES>                                    36,238
<INVENTORY>                                     60,992
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,753,349
<PP&E>                                       6,522,416
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,701,827
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,037,289
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,762,650
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,933
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,927,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,037,289
<SALES>                                        764,050
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,856,238
<CGS>                                          463,901
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  463,901
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,240,637
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,605
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             300,998
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,655
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,655
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,655
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>