alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1617

For the relief of Jesus M. Collado-Mun ̃oz.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 9, 1998

Mr. MOYNIHAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Jesus M. Collado-Mun ̃oz.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF CONSIDERATION OF CRIMINAL OF4 FENSE FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES FOR

5 JESUS M. COLLADO-MUN ̃ OZ.

6 Notwithstanding sections 212(a) and 237(a) of the

7 Immigration and Nationality Act, Jesus M. Collado8 Mun ̃oz shall not be considered, by reason of the criminal

9 offense to which he pleaded guilty on October 24, 1974,

10 to be inadmissible to, or deportable from, the United

11 States. The offense shall not be used to find that Jesus

12 M. Collado-Mun ̃oz lacks good moral character for any pur-
2

•S 1617 IS

1 pose under that Act, including eligibility for naturaliza2 tion.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The consolidated balance sheet as of November 30, 1996 and the consolidated
     statement of income for the year ended November 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000823975
<NAME>                        Columbus Energy Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,396
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,433
<ALLOWANCES>                                   116
<INVENTORY>                                    115
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,536
<PP&E>                                         30,032
<DEPRECIATION>                                 12,943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 21,625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,570
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       700
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,525
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   21,625
<SALES>                                        10,572
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               11,815
<CGS>                                          3,016
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,226
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,327
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,229
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,098
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,098
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .64
        


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

13

- 20

- 00065

- CR

EX PARTE CHESTER SINCLAIR

On Appeal from the 227th District Court of Bexar County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1997CR3391W1

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
September 12, 2024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

AMY ROBERTSON, ON BEHALF 

OF C.C., A MINOR, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner, Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 6:15-CV-00903-CL 

ORDER AWARDING FEES 

PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL 

ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 

Based on a Stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the 

amount of $6,600.00 are awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The amount of this award shall be paid to Plaintiffs attorney upon 

verification that Plaintiff validly assigned these EAJA fees to his attorney and that Plaintiff has 

no debt, which qualifies for offset against the award, pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program. 

See Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). If Plaintiff has no such debt and there is a valid 

assignment, then a check shall be made out to Plaintiffs attorney, and mailed to Plaintiffs 

attorney's office as follows: Rory J. Linerud, at P .0. Box 1105, Salem, OR 97308-1105. If 

Plaintiff has a debt, and/or if there is no valid assignment, then a check for any remaining funds, 

after any offset of the debt, shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's office at 

the address stated above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DA TED this I 0 

ORDER - FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTIC ACT 

Page 1 

Case 6:15-cv-00903-CL Document 27 Filed 10/10/16 Page 1 of 2
Presented by: 

S/RORY J. LINERUD 

LINERUD LAW FIRM, OSB # 97006 

POBox1105 

Salem, OR 97308-1105 

503-587-8776 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

rorylinerud@hotmail.com 

ORDER - FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTIC ACT 

Page 2 

Case 6:15-cv-00903-CL Document 27 Filed 10/10/16 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AS FOUND
ON PAGES 52 AND 53 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          59,803
<SECURITIES>                                    57,422
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,414
<ALLOWANCES>                                       809
<INVENTORY>                                      7,558
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               161,655
<PP&E>                                          40,273
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,159
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 261,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,341
<BONDS>                                             27
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                     241,208
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   261,411
<SALES>                                        157,106
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               157,106
<CGS>                                           82,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,558
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                83,652
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 286
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,997
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,050
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,947
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,947
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
PAGE 1 – ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

DAVID H. ANGELI, OSB No. 020244 

 david@angelilaw.com 

KRISTEN L. TRANETZKI, OSB. No. 115730 

 kristen@angelilaw.com 

Angeli Ungar Law Group LLC 

121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 400 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: (503) 954-2232

Facsimile: (503) 227-0880

COURTNEY W. ANGELI, OSB No. 941765 

 courtney@baaslaw.com 

ROBIN BOWERFIND, OSB No. 035949 

robin@baaslaw.com 

Buchanan Angeli Altschul & Sullivan LLP 

321 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: (503) 974-5015 

Facsimile: (971) 230-0337

Attorneys for Plaintiff John Doe

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE REED INSTITUTE

(aka, Reed College) and JANE ROE,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-00617-MO

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 84 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Based upon the Stipulated Motion for Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice, this action 

is dismissed with prejudice and without costs or fees to any party. 

DATED this ______day of June, 2016. 

_________________________________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN 

United States District Court 

22

/s/ Michael W. Mosman

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 84 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 2
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AN T HO NY L UN A E L I S E O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 71233 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 475- 581 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 5, 2012 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , G O U L D , an dT A L L M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A nthonyL unaE l i s e o ( “ E l i s e o” ) , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of the P hi l i ppi ne s , and al e ga l pe rm a ne ntr e s i de ntof the U ni t e d S t a t e s , pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of 

# FI LED MA R 07 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rf i ndi ng r e m ovabi l i ty . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 , a n dw e d e n yth e p e titio n . E l i s e o’ s c onvi c t i on f

orvi ol a t i ng C a l i f

orni aH e a l th and S a f

e tyC ode § 11378 is a n a g g r a v a te df

e lo n yu n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( B ) ; se e Cazarez -G ut i errez v . A s h c r o ft , 38 2 F . 3d 90 5, 91 9 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( a s t at e drug o ff ense i s an agg ravat ed f e lo n yf o rim m ig r a tio n p u rp o s e s if it c o n ta in s atr a f

f ic k in g e le m e n t) . C o n tr aryto E l i se o’ s c on t ent i on , the re cord of conv i ct i on nam el y the adm i ss i on t o the charges al l eged by the D epartm entof H om el and S ec uri ty e st abl i shed thatE l i se o w as c o n v ic te do f

§ 1 1 3 7 8 , p o s s e s s io n f

o rs a le o f ac o n tr o lle ds ub s tan c e , to w it m e th a m p h e ta m in e . See P ag ayon v. H older , N os . 07- 74047, 07- 75129, 2011 W L 6091276, *4 ( 9th C i r . D e c . 8, 2011) ( hol di ng tha t“ an a l i e n’ s c onc e s s i on of re m ov abi l i ty or a dm i ss i on of fa ct s e st abl i shi ng re m ov abi l i ty, i f a cc ept ed by the IJ c o m p le te lyr e lie v e s th e g o v e rn m e n t o f th e b u r d e n o f

p r o du c in g e v id e n c e ” ) . A c c o r d in g ly , w e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D .
#### Greene v A P Products, Ltd,

Nos. 127718, 127734.

Reported at 475 Mich 502.

Cavanagh and Kelly, JJ. We would grant rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bradley I. Kyler, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 887]

Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), rendered January 4, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), defendant contends that he is entitled to be resentenced because the prosecutor failed to provide *Brady*material, i.e., the details of defendant’s alleged cooperation with law enforcement agents and any promises that he received in return for such cooperation. Initially, we note that defendant is correct that *“Brady*concerns exculpatory evidence that is relevant ... to punishment” *(People v Reese,*23 AD3d 1034, 1036 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 779 [2006]; *see generally Brady v Maryland,*373 US 83, 87 [1963]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s contention survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal *(see generally People v Johnson,*60 AD3d 1496, 1497 [2009], *lv denied*12 NY3d 926 [2009]), however, we conclude that it is unavailing. Defendant “failed to establish the existence of the [alleged *Brady*material] . . . , and its potential [mitigation] value is purely speculative” *(id.; see People v Little,*23 AD3d 1117, 1118 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 777 [2006]; *People v Mellerson,*15 AD3d 964, 965 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 791 [2005]). In addition, “ ‘[i]t is well settled that evidence is not deemed to be *Brady*material when the defendant has knowledge of it,’ and here the record establishes that defendant was aware [of the extent of his *1432cooperation with law enforcement agents and any promises that were made to him]” *(People v Wall,*38 AD3d 1341, 1341 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 852 [2007]; *see People v Archie,*78 AD3d 1560, 1562 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 856 [2011]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Carni, Lindley and Martoche; JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I, Paul E. Martin, the Principal Financial Officer of Enstar Income/Growth
Program Six-A, L.P. (the Partnership) in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify that, the Partnerships Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission:  
    
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership. /s/ Paul E. MartinPaul E. MartinPrincipal Financial OfficerApril 14, 2004
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION




The
undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an
officer of Inter Parfums, Inc., that the Annual Report of Inter Parfums, Inc. on
Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 for the year ended  December 31, 2008,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
Inter Parfums, Inc.





Date: May 26, 2009
                  
                  By:
                  /s/
      Jean MadarJean
      MadarChief
      Executive Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Inter Parfums, Inc. and will be retained by Inter Parfums, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
(December 16, 1986)

#### Power Authority of the State of New York, Appellant, v John Potocnik et al., Respondents. (And Three Other Related Actions.)

— Casey, J.

Appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court (Ingraham, J.), entered June 12, 1986 in Otsego County, and (2) an order of said court, entered June 11, 1986 in Delaware County, which denied plaintiffs motions for summary judgment.

Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment. The thrust of defendant’s arguments in these actions for permanent injunctions is aimed at the certification process and determinations of the Public Service Commission under Public Service Law article VII. Defendants had ample opportunity to raise their objections in the administrative process and to pursue judicial review pursuant to Public Service Law § 128.* The Public Service Commission’s determinations cannot be collaterally attacked in these actions *(see, Atwell v Power Auth. of State of N Y,*67 AD2d 365, 367; *see also,*Public Service Law § 129). We find no material issue of fact which would justify denial of summary judgment to plaintiff.

Orders reversed, on the law, without costs, motions granted and summary judgment awarded to plaintiff. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

*

 Proceedings were commenced in this court challenging, among other things, the Public Service Commission’s order granting the certificate of environmental compatibility and public need. However, this court recently granted motions dismissing the petitions on the ground the proceedings were untimely *(Matter of Delaware County Citizens Opposed to Powerline Route Alternatives [DCCOPRAJ*v *Public Service Commn. of State of N Y.*120 AD2d 256).
Page 1 - NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL MARTIN, BISCHOFF, TEMPLETON, 

LANGSLET & HOFFMAN LLP

Attorneys at Law

888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 Portland, OR 97204

Telephone (503) 224-3113 Fax (503) 224-9471

Jonathan M. Hoffman, OSB No. 754180

jhoffman@martinbischoff.com

Thomas W. Purcell, OSB No. 114938

tpurcell@martinbischoff.com

MARTIN BISCHOFF TEMPLETON LANGSLET & HOFFMAN LLP

888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 900

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: (503) 224-3113

Facsimile: (503) 224-9471

Attorneys for Defendant Catlin Specialty Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

Portland Division

JEFFREY ROSS GAUTHIER and CLUB 

MYSTIC, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CATLIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-1130-SB

NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

NOTICE is hereby given per LR 83-10 that Jonathan M. Hoffman and Thomas W. 

Purcell of Martin, Bischoff, Templeton, Langslet & Hoffman, LLP, 888 S.W. Fifth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Portland, Oregon, 97204, hereby substitute in as counsel to represent Defendant Catlin 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-01130-SB Document 24 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 - NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL MARTIN, BISCHOFF, TEMPLETON, 

LANGSLET & HOFFMAN LLP

Attorneys at Law

888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 Portland, OR 97204

Telephone (503) 224-3113 Fax (503) 224-9471

Specialty Insurance Company as attorneys of record in place of John L. Langslet and David W. 

Cramer of Martin, Bischoff, Templeton, Langslet & Hoffman LLP. All further correspondence 

and pleadings should be sent to Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Purcell at the address listed below.

DATED: December 18, 2015. MARTIN, BISCHOFF, TEMPLETON, 

 LANGSLET & HOFFMAN, LLP

By: /s/ Jonathan M. Hoffman Jonathan M. Hoffman, OSB #754180 Email: jhoffman@martinbischoff.com

 Thomas W. Purcell, OSB #114938

 Email: tpurcell@martinbischoff.com

 888 S.W. Fifth Ave., Ste. 900

 Portland, OR 97204

 Telephone: (503) 224-3113

 Fax: (503) 224-9471

 Of Attorneys for Defendant

 

 

DATED: December 18, 2015. MARTIN, BISCHOFF, TEMPLETON, 

 LANGSLET & HOFFMAN, LLP

By: /s/ John L. Langslet

 John L. Langslet, OSB #721469

 jlangslet@martinbischoff.com

 David W. Cramer, OSB #113621

 dcramer@martinbischoff.com

 888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 900

 Portland, OR 97204

 Telephone: (503) 224-3113

 Facsimile: (503) 224-9471

Case 3:15-cv-01130-SB Document 24 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet found on page F-3 and consolidated statement
of operations found on page F-4 of the Company's Form 10-KSB for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                 MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                           716,309
<SECURITIES>                  10,884,600
<RECEIVABLES>                    597,909
<ALLOWANCES>                      10,000
<INVENTORY>                      203,998
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               1,874,497
<PP&E>                        10,450,185
<DEPRECIATION>                 4,260,981
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                19,379,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          2,985,603
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                             295
<OTHER-SE>                     9,982,031
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  19,379,310
<SALES>                        5,172,798
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               5,172,798
<CGS>                          3,113,058
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  3,113,058
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               3,012,184
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               517,153
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (1,393,362)
<INCOME-TAX>                    (640,764)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (752,598)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                    (752,598)
<EPS-BASIC>                      (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.25)


</TABLE>
[No. 10514.

Department One.

December 30, 1912.]

#### D. C. Lee *et al., Respondents,*v. V. N. Bogue, Appellant.2

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Tallman, J., entered February 24, 1912, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action on contract.

Affirmed.

*G. F. Bogue,*for appellant.

*C. N. Young {Chas. Arnold,*of counsel), for respondents.

2

Reported in 128 Pac. 1135.

*699Per Curiam.

Among appellant’s several assignments of error in this case, we regard none worthy of our serious consideration, save the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. We have carefully read the entire evidence, and are convinced therefrom that it fully sustains the finding of the jury. No useful purpose would be served by our discussion of the evidence here. It is doubtful whether this case is before us in such form as to call for our discussion of any of appellant’s assignments of error; but since a reading of the very short statement of facts renders it plain that the case must in any event be affirmed upon the merits, we conclude to dispose of it in this manner.

The judgment is affirmed.