alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial informaton extracted from Lancer
Orthodontics, Inc. February 28, 1997 Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety be reference to such 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                         100,839
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,524,039
<ALLOWANCES>                                   103,508
<INVENTORY>                                  1,702,465
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,227,461
<PP&E>                                       2,325,392
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,050,940)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,981,248
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,009,271
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    185,242
<COMMON>                                     4,710,614
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,923,879)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,981,248
<SALES>                                      4,707,896
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,707,896
<CGS>                                        2,945,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,945,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,227
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,819
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             45,019
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,019
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.001)
        

</TABLE>
Case 7:07-cv-03544-KMK-LMS Document 7 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.01

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ali Jenab,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of VA
Software  Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2003 fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained  in such Annual  Report on
Form 10-K fairly presents in all material  respects the financial  condition and
results of operations of VA Software Corporation.


                                       By:      /s/ ALI JENAB
                                          ------------------------------------

                                       Name:    Ali Jenab
                                       Title:   Chief Executive Officer


                                       69
#### GASTON v. SMITH

No. 154 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 242.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 30 August 1974.
0- , . . . , . . ,. .. . . . . . .. -.-.--- --..-...,-. _ . ---- ----.----- -"---dx 

j i:Sii\.<: SDNY "1 

1 fig (;l,!y$f<r 1 i l i 

I EI~~yg;tr.:.;e,~;,.~y F~I,;~D 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -A;..--.- 

IN RE: 

: MASTER i:11,E 

FOSAMAX PRODUCTS LIABII,ITY LITIGATION 

I I :06-MD-I 789 (JFK) 

This Document Relates 7b .4N ilctions 

ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE ON ORAL MOTION 

Upon the oral motion of William .I. Beausolcil, attorney for defendant Merck &: Co., Inc., and 

said sponsor attorney's declaration that applicant James M. Doran, Jr. is a member in good 

standing of the bar of the United States District Court for the MiddIe District of Tennessee; 

and that applicant's contact information is as follows: 

Applicant's Name: James M. Doran, Jr. 

Firm Namc: Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis 

Addrcss: Nashville City Center, 51 1 Union Strcet, Suite 2700 

CityIStatclZip: Nashville. Tenncssee 372 19 

TeicphoneIFax: (6 15) 850-8843/(615) 244-6804 

Email Address: jim.doran@,wallerlaw.com 

said applicant having requested admission pro hac vice to appcar for all purposes as counsel for 

Merck & Co., Inc. in the above entitled action: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that James M. Doran, Jr, is admitted to practice pro hac vice in the 

above captioned case in the United States District Court fbr the Southern District of New York. 

All attorneys appearing before this Court are suhject to the Local Rules of this Court, including 

thc Rulcs governing discipline of attomcys. If this action is assigned to thc Electronic Case 

Filing (ECF) system, counscl shall immediately apply for an ECF password at 

Case 1:07-cv-03466-JFK Document 4 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 1 of 3
2 

\v\\w.n~~sd.uscourisb~o~~. Counsel shall immediately forward the pro hac vice fee to the Clerk of 

the Court. 

Dated: June 212007 

New York, New York 

--- 

-united States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03466-JFK Document 4 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DlSTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

CERTlFlCATE OF GOOD STANDlNG 

1. KEITH THROCKMORTON. Clerk ofthe llnited Stalcs District Court for the 

Middle District of'l'enncssee. do herebq certilicd that .JAMES M. DOHAN was duly 

admitted to practice in said Court on April 10, 1970, and is in good standing as a member 

of thc bar ofsaid Court. 

Dated at Nashville. 'l'enncssee on May 29, 2007 

KI;I'TI~I THKOCKMORTON, CI,EIU -- Deputy CI 

Case 1:07-cv-03466-JFK Document 4 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT
(32)




CERTIFICATION
OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS*




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, each of the undersigned officers of La-Z-Boy
Incorporated (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that
the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 23,
2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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 Company.




/s/ Kurt L. DarrowKurt
      L. DarrowPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerFebruary
      16, 2010/s/ Louis M. Riccio, Jr.Louis
      M. Riccio, Jr.Senior
      Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerFebruary
      16, 2010




*The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
#### STATE v. SMITH

No. 184 PC.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 97.

Petition *for writ*of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 March 1975.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

oplnloa Ho. O-729 

Ret llhetheror~ 

of palLo of 

mm, Tez 

titled to eo 

I 

a 

It Chid 

olty OS 

-0 coY”““,cA,,0” I. To me CO*.,.Y.rn I.. -..nY.-.. ^_.“..... . --- .----~~- 

bspeeifdly troilbr 34ation 5, thereof, uhfw4 the uork 

pbFiarPed b t?rr is8 18 WtWlly ~rf%‘rvXl by the 

GhIef ai 3 a3 tc8 fsr all cews tiled by Urn in Zho 

Just ice sr C-xmty Cwrtr 3f Wa8hiagtoa Cxinty?” 

St 18 the 9jdoioa 05 thlr OopLlrtmmt, a& ~9% are ~0 

odrlwd that you how qu.f# 

*sS, thb city d i3rbohM that f 

Popiarly lr&mmd th8 Chktt d PcWca 

4 48848 iZlad by him tn the Juettcs 

Court of Frealtact Jo, 3, lMbhln&on Couiaty, Texa6, h4 uotlld tb 

eotW.ad ts collect the he provided urdsr Artlaie 1065, C.?de 

af CrLarLtralPraaadurs,eo~oirf3Jppdrr Sectha tbareof,wlm'e 

thb vorlc ;lerPoraand for ths Sbb 18 atotW.ly pUrforI66Q by the Ci¶i(~f 

sf P3liee. 

Artialb 1067, of the a&um euble, 33ZWVtd48 that %clR-~~~ 

atnb&8, &82&M s8eaute pmcera 

aml perform w 1 WtbWt8, -1 

:ooelve um emas f!oor'rllweu t& &F%#f8 tw 8he SaM uF9lo.s." 

It 1 0 l Vf&tt, thOl'bfOI'0, tb 8t VhOtt OaJ OPtiCOr ipl th18 

&&awe tha chief bf Polfso) prriowm the due muWed 

wtuk, ho Ls eotftkrd to the ecmpbos6tlmt 

& h-by 

by law; l u¶ 

:ORVOPWl~, tbr UOWb8 h&V0 said tht %O @&it& (LLI OffieeP tC 

00elue fOO8 OP 8oaal88106 . , . . he mast &vs pertoPwd the 

orrio* for uhfctb 0 

*as w, w* g;zB* 

cwatlw hnr knu qmolfted.' (9 1pex. Jy'., 
i’hla departnant~ hw frequently held t&at 8~ mict3r cttiey 

sot lefglly charge for r33m than cm cceLt.mat 19 allg mi848tau~~3r 

S-%5(1, or for ame thm 306 releaw, lo atiy misbemeanor ca96, ard 

that he carulot charge etther of th?sa fees ‘SaleSI he atamlly 

earam lrald her, a@ required by law. noa, fulemr, that If a constable or other offLcer has a defeadant llr hta cust.&y, a&-! the 

ccm3ttabl.e 3r otheesr 7ifTcar r+tleBg-385 tha defetx2aut fr3fn the form 

at-14 effect ol 4 ju&gnent r*tsCratnLy[ the rJ(3fetiant, t&in, and In 

that event, the coaatahl8 %0.31thf~ ” 3fficsr vould be entltlea to 

a $1.00 relmss fee. 

Va nQht ardd that lo a Ceatererace Opfaion of thla depsrtrieat rerrdered sow para ago, x0. o-2725, 1t WA3 held that 0 063atmnt fer vhlch o peace &fleer ia alloved a fee of $1.00 fa for executlcg an order af tb aourt dlreotl~ that 8 harem be placed in 

jail, and ao olficer 15 net allmsd to chtwgp math fee la tha absence 

of Bush oPder$ that a capins or ?#arrant iB not a coxnlt3x9nt for which 

a foe IB allowd; t&t Use jadgemInt of a court is oat ut~thlo iteelf 

a catlmot for vhlch a see iB allcwedI end &hat a re3.eaw for 

ohich l m officer iB Olkm?d l fee of $1.00 IS f%’ rel6W~l~ 

32 dissharglng & defendant fraa the fm?e &ml effect of Q jt.idpeat 

restrelsfng Blra. 

Oru, Coaf6wtbae OplafoaXe. eC3OfY3 follove Cotirencs Oplaloo Bo. O-2725, aad holde that t&e coastabb i8 eatitZed ta 8 reLsasll r80 if he r4.eases the derew38~t rfwt tha force end effeat of 

P jud@eat mstrraie~ him. 

b& trUBt thlIt th%B aaSWFB YOUr iwtlLrJ S& Z”36BBtlCBe 

you la the carreotne8s of y5ur ovn viwt of tha cmtter.
Exhibit
3.6





Amendment
to the By-Laws of Geeknet, Inc.





Pursuant
to a resolution of the Board of Directors of Geeknet, Inc. dated February 9,
2010, the By-Laws of Geeknet, Inc. are hereby amended as follows:





“Section
3.2 of the By-Laws of the Company shall amended as
follows:   “The authorized number of directors of the Corporation
shall be eight (8) and, thereafter, shall be fixed from time to time exclusively
by the Board of Directors pursuant to a resolution adopted by the majority of
the total number of authorized directorships at the time any such resolution is
presented to the Board for adoption.  No reduction of the authorized
number of directors shall have the effect of removing any director before that
director’s term of office expires.”





/s/ Adam HellerAdam
      HellerSecretaryGeeknet,
      Inc.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 6, 2014

No. 04-13-00844-CR

Mathew Ray GOMEZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No 2, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. CCL-12-1963

Honorable Frank Follis, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Court Reporter’s Notification of Late Record is hereby GRANTED. The reporter’s 

record is due April 18, 2014.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 6th day of March, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### KAPLAN v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM

No. 27.

Reported: 286 N.C. 80.

Petition by defendant to rehear denied 27 December 1974.
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-3 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-3 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 2 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-3 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 3 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-3 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 4 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-3 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 5 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-3 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 6 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-3 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 7 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-3 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 8 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-3 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 9 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-3 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 10 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-3 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 11 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-3 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 12 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 21 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 21 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 21 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 3 of 3
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2099 

AN ACT 

To redesignate the Sullys Hill National Game Preserve in 

the State of North Dakota as the White Horse Hill 

National Game Preserve. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 2099 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘White Horse Hill Na3 tional Game Preserve Designation Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WHITE HORSE HILL NATIONAL 

5 GAME PRESERVE, NORTH DAKOTA. 

6 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The first section of the Act of 

7 March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1509, chapter 439; 16 U.S.C. 

8 674a), is amended by striking ‘‘Sullys Hill National Game 

9 Preserve’’ and inserting ‘‘White Horse Hill National Game 

10 Preserve’’. 

11 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 2 of the 

12 Act of March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1509, chapter 439; 16 

13 U.S.C. 674b), is amended by striking ‘‘Sullys Hill Na14 tional Game Preserve’’ and inserting ‘‘White Horse Hill 

15 National Game Preserve’’. 

16 (c) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg17 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

18 States to the Sullys Hill National Game Preserve shall be 

19 considered to be a reference to the ‘‘White Horse Hill Na20 tional Game Preserve’’. 

Passed the Senate November 14, 2019. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2099 

AN ACT 

To redesignate the Sullys Hill National Game PreHorse Hill National Game Preserve. serve in the State of North Dakota as the White
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-12 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-12 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-12 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-12 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-12 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-12 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-12 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-12 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 8 of 8
Order entered April 22, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01199-CR

PETER PHUC HONG TRAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-81478-2012

ORDER

The Court GRANTS appellant’s April 18, 2014 amended motion for extension of time to 

file appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file the brief within SIXTY (60) DAYS from the date of this 

order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
## NUMBER 13
- 2 3
- 00 009
- C V
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE STATE BAR OF TEXAS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.



## ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Peña

Order Per Curiam

On January 9, 2023, relator State Bar of Texas filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its (1) “ Order Permitting Taking Bar

Examination ” of October 6, 2022 , and (2) “ Order Regarding Respondent’s Motion for

Reconsidera tion , Plea to the Jurisdiction [,] and Motion to Dismiss” of December 8, 2022,

which collectively allow Marco “Mark” A. Cantu to sit and take the Texas Bar Exam in February 2023

. Relator has also filed a motion for stay through which it seeks to stay these orders pending the resolution of this petition for writ of mandamus.2

The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion to stay, is of the opinion that it should be grant ed. Accordingly, we grant relator’s motion to stay, and we

order the (1) “Order Permitting Taking Bar Examination” of October 6, 2022, and (2) “Order Regarding Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration, Plea to the Jurisdiction[,]
and Motion to Dismiss” of D ecember 8, 2022, to be stayed pending the resolution of this original proceeding. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10 (“ Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided. ”

We request the real part y in interest , Marco “Mark” A. Cantu, or any others whose

interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, to f ile a response to the petition for
writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten ( 10) days from the date of this order.
See id. R. 52.2, 52. 4, 52.8.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed on the 10t h day of J anuary , 202 3

.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Patricia J. Sherer, Appellant

No. 06-12-00023-CV v.

James Ray Sherer and Gloria Jean Sherer 

(f/k/a Gloria Jean Roberson), Individually 

and James Ray Sherer as Power-ofAttorney for Bertha M. Sherer, Appellees

Appeal from the 336th District Court of 

Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 36332). 

Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief 

Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of 

the court below. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and render a take nothing 

judgment in favor of Patricia Sherer.

We further order that the appellees pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JANUARY 4, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### SERMONS v. PETERS, COMR. OF MOTOR VEHICLES

No. 117PC

Case below: 51 NC App 147

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 May 1981.
Case 7:07-cv-03537-CLB     Document 7      Filed 08/10/2007     Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. TRIPP

No. 155 P.C.

Case below: 38 N.C. App. 628.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 February 1979.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             757
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  139,265
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,690
<INVENTORY>                                    196,393
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               353,887
<PP&E>                                         425,116
<DEPRECIATION>                                 247,648
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 598,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          151,954
<BONDS>                                          2,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,115
<OTHER-SE>                                     373,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   598,590
<SALES>                                        263,945
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               263,945
<CGS>                                          188,666
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  188,666
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,926
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,488
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,438
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,438
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57


</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ESTELLA RICHARDSON

No. 150

(Filed 15 December 1971)

Appeal by defendant from *McLean, J.,*July 19, 1971, Schedule “B” Session of Mecklenburg Superior Court.

The defendant, Estella Richardson, was indicted for murder in the second degree for killing Sara Mae Green. The indictment specifically stated the killing was with malice aforethought, but without premeditation and deliberation. The defendant, represented by court-appointed counsel, entered a plea of not guilty.

At the trial the State offered eyewitnesses who testified that on June 30, 1970, they were visitors at the home of the defendant, Estella Richardson, at 440 North Summit Avenue in Charlotte. At about seven o’clock in the evening, Sara Mae Green (the deceased) appeared in the yard outside the defendant’s house. The defendant speaking to Sara Mae Green said, “didn’t I tell you to stay away from my house . . . don’t you believe I’ll shoot you . . . . ” Estella and Rufus Johnson began scuffling over a pistol in Estella’s possession. When Estella promised not to use the pistol he released her. She then addressed Sara Mae, “poor bitch, don’t you believe I’ll shoot you” and Sara Mae said, “shoot” and Estella shot Sara Mae. Sara Mae was unarmed. Dr. Wood, a qualified pathologist, testified that on June 30, 1970, Sara Mae Green died as a result of the gunshot wound.

The defendant testified she had ordered the deceased, Sara Mae Green, to stay away from her house. On the day of the shooting Sara Mae appeared, stated that she had come to “whoop” the defendant. She reached in her bosom (for a weapon), then the defendant shot her in self-defense. None of the witnesses corroborated the defendant’s testimony.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree. From the judgment that the defendant be imprisoned for a term of twenty-one years, she appealed. The court, finding the defendant to be indigent, entered an order permitting her to appeal as a pauper and appointed her trial counsel to prosecute her appeal.

*179
      *Robert Morgan, Attorney General by James L. Blackburn, Assistant Attorney General for the State.*

*T. 0. Stennett for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Defense counsel stated he has searched the record and has been unable to discover anything properly assignable as error. As defense counsel requested, this Court has carefully reviewed the record. We find the indictment in proper form, the evidence abundantly sufficient to make out a case of murder in the second degree, and the prison sentence within the limits prescribed for the offense charged. The defendant’s testimony that she acted in self-defense in firing the fatal shot is contradicted by all other witnesses.

In the trial and judgment we find

No error.