alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as Brown v. Hall, 123 Ohio St.3d 381, 2009-Ohio-5592.]

B ROWN , A PPELLANT , v. H ALL , W ARDEN , A PPELLEE . [Cite as Brown v. Hall, 123 Ohio St.3d 381, 2009-Ohio-5592.] Habeas corpus — Remanded to appellate c ourt for entry of judgment of dismissal — Appellate court erred in addressing merits when petition filed in county other than county in which petitioner is incarcerated. (No. 2009-0819 — Submitted October 20, 2009 — Decided October 29, 2009.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. 2009 CA 00034, 2009-Ohio-1349.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Stark County and remand the cause to that court to dismiss the habeas corpus petition of appellant, Felix Brown Jr. Th e court of appeals erred in addressing the merits of Brown’s habeas corpus claim because he incorrectly filed it in Stark County instead of the county in which he is in carcerated, Richland County. See R.C. 2725.03 (“If a person restrained of his liberty is an inmate of a state benevolent or correctional institution, the location of which is fixed by statute and at the time is in the custody of the officers of the institution, no court or judge other than the courts or judges of the county in which th e institution is located has jurisdiction to issue or determine a writ of habeas cor pus for his production or discharge”). Even though Brown’s petition reached the sa me district court of appeals it would have had it been filed in the correct c ounty, the court of appeals still lacked jurisdiction to determine the merits of Brown’s petition. Goudlock v. Voorhies , 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-4787, 894 N.E.2d 692, ¶ 17, citing Sevayega v. Bobby , Mahoning App. No. 03 MA 48, 2003-Ohio-6395, 2003 WL 22839346, ¶
4.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
M OYER , C.J., and L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.
P FEIFER , J., concurs in judgment only.

__________________ Felix Brown Jr., pro se. Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Gene D. Park, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

______________________
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21.1



                     SUBSIDIARIES - AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2000

     *      SunSource Capital Trust
            Organized in the State of Delaware

     *      SunSource Investment Company, Inc.
            Incorporated in the State of Delaware

     *      SunSub A Inc.
            Incorporated in the State of Delaware

            *      SunSource Corporate Group, Inc.
                   Incorporated in the State of Delaware

            *      The Hillman Group, Inc.
                   Incorporated in the State of Delaware

                   *      Axxess Technologies, Inc.
                          Incorporated in the State of Delaware

            *      SunSource Industrial Services Company, Inc.
                   Incorporated in the State of Delaware

                   *      SunSource Technology Services, Inc.
                          Incorporated in the State of Delaware

                   *      SunSource Inventory Management Company, Inc.
                          Incorporated in the State of Delaware

                   *      A&H Holding Co.
                          Incorporated in the State of Michigan

                          *      SunSource Integrated Services
                                 de Mexico S. A. DE C. V.
                                 Incorporated in Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico

                          *      1394066 Ontario Inc.
                                 Incorporated in the Province of Ontario

                                 *      J. N. Fauver (Canada) Limited
                                        Incorporated in the Province of Ontario

                          *      SunSub C
                                 Incorporated in the State of Delaware

                                 *      SunSub Holdings, L.L.C.
                                        Incorporated in the State of Nevada
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-65245, No. 333-65255, No. 333-31054, No. 333-37456, No.333-43510, No. 333-62940, No. 333-62942, No. 333-62946, No. 333-62948, No. 333-86810, No. 333-98547 and No. 333-103882 of Entrust, Inc. on Forms S-8 of our report dated February 27, 2003 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes anexplanatory paragraph relating to the change in method of accounting for goodwill and other purchased intangibles, as of January 1, 2002, as required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142), appearing in this Annual Report on Form10-K/A of Entrust, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE& TOUCHE LLP 

 

Dallas, Texas 

December 22, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000741557
<NAME> JW CHARLES FINANCIAL SERVICES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          12,967
<SECURITIES>                                     7,060
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           1,471
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,320
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,590
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,721
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,137
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,659
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,062
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,416
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,195
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,221
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,221
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6949
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT NEWSOME, a/k/a Nu Nu, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-79, CA-96-190-3) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 20, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Newsome, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Farrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), ame nded by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Newsome , Nos. CR-92-79; CA-96- 190-3 (S.D.W. Va. May 24, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0363

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

DIANE KRANTZ,

Petitioner and Appellee,

and

KEITH KRANTZ,

Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension 

of time, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted a 30-day

extension of time to and including October 20, 2020, within which to 

prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

September 14 2020

09/14/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0363
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 202ND DISTRICT COURT OF BOWIE COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 31st 

day of December, A.D. 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was 

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Jason Massey, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-14-00098-CR

Trial Court No. 13F0017-202

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 trial court’s order denying Jason Massey’s motion to 

suppress, and we remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.

We further order that the appellee, The State of Texas, pay all costs of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 11th day of March, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1670

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 6, 2000

Referred to the Committee on Resources

AN ACT

To revise the boundary of Fort Matanzas National

Monument, and for other purposes.

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

S 1670 RFH

1 SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

2 In this Act:

3 (1) MAP.—The term ‘‘Map’’ means the map en4 titled ‘‘Fort Matanzas National Monument’’, num5 bered 347/80,004 and dated February, 1991.

6 (2) MONUMENT.—The term ‘‘Monument’’

7 means the Fort Matanzas National Monument in

8 Florida.

9 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means

10 the Secretary of the Interior.

11 SEC. 2. REVISION OF BOUNDARY.

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—The boundary of the Monument

13 is revised to include an area totaling approximately 70

14 acres, as generally depicted on the Map.

15 (b) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The Map shall be on file

16 and available for public inspection in the office of the Di17 rector of the National Park Service.

18 SEC. 3. ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND.

19 The Secretary may acquire any land, water, or inter20 ests in land that are located within the revised boundary

21 of the Monument by—

22 (1) donation;

23 (2) purchase with donated or appropriated

24 funds;

25 (3) transfer from any other Federal agency; or

26 (4) exchange.
3

S 1670 RFH

1 SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION.

2 Subject to applicable laws, all land and interests in

3 land held by the United States that are included in the

4 revised boundary under section 2 shall be administered by

5 the Secretary as part of the Monument.

6 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

7 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

8 as are necessary to carry out this Act.

Passed the Senate October 5 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
Exhibit 21.1

UTSTARCOM SUBSIDIARIES

Name

Place of Incorporation or OrganizationUTStarcom International Products, Inc.

U.S.AUTStarcom International Services, Inc.

U.S.AIssanni Commnications, Inc.

U.S.AUTStarcom (China), Co., Ltd.

ChinaUTStarcom Telecom Co., Ltd.

ChinaUTStarcom (Chongqing) Telecom Co., Ltd.

ChinaBaide Wei Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

ChinaUTStarcom Hong Kong Ltd.

Hong Kong SARUTStarcom Japan KK

JapanUTStarcom, S.A. de C.V.

MexicoUTStarcom GmbH

GermanyUTStarcom Ireland Limited

IrelandUTStarcom Singapore PTE.LTD

SingaporeUTStarcom Taiwan Ltd.

TaiwanUTStarcom Network SolutionsRedes de Nova Geração Ltda.

BrazilUTStarcom Australia Pty Ltd.

AustraliaUTStarcom France SARL

FranceUTStarcom Korea Limited.

KoreaUTStarcom Chile Soluciones De Redes Limitada

ChileUTStarcom Argentina S.R.L.

ArgentinaUTStarcom India Telecom Pvt.

IndiaUTStarcom UK Limited

UKUTStarcom (Thailand) Limited

ThailandUTStarcom Italy S.R.L

ItalyMyTV Corporation

Cayman IslandUTStarcom (Philippines), Inc.

Philippines


---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 13.2




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 G. Willi-Food International Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raviv Segal, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, 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.




Date: April 30, 2014




By:

/s/ Raviv Segal

Name: Raviv Segal

Title: Chief Financial Officer
(January 11, 1924.)

#### In the Matter of the Application of JAMES BATES for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

[224 Pac. 668.]

Petition for writ of *habeas corpus.*

*Petitioner discharged.*

William Healy, for Petitioner.

A. H. Conner, Attorney General, and Herman H. Taylor, for Wm. P. Dunning, Sheriff.

DUNN, J.

— It having been stipulated by the state and the petitioner that this case is in all respects similar to that of Richard Moore, *ante,*p. 506, 224 Pac. 662, and that the judgment in this case may follow that entered in the case *524of Richard Moore, it is ordered that the petitioner be discharged.

William A. Lee and Wm. E. Lee, JJ., concur.

McCarthy, C. J., and Budge, J., dissent.
NUMBER 13-12-00787-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

RAMIRO R. ARMENDARIZ, Appellant,

v.

STATE FARM LLOYDS AND DANIEL LONGORIA, Appellees.

On appeal from the 445th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas

ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on the appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal with 

prejudice or to abate the appeal. Appellees state that the parties have agreed to dismiss 

the appeal and appellees have delivered settlement documents to appellant. Appellees 

have not received the signed release or motion to dismiss from appellant and requests 
2

this Court enforce the agreement and dismiss the appeal, or direct appellant to deliver 

the executed release, join in the motion to dismiss, and abate the appeal.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the 

motion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice or to abate the appeal, is of the opinion that 

the motion to abate the appeal should be granted. The motion to abate the appeal is 

GRANTED, and appellant is directed to deliver the executed release and join in the motion 

to dismiss. This appeal is ordered ABATED until May 26, 2015, or upon further order of 

this Court. Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice is CARRIED WITH 

THE CASE. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

1st day of April, 2015.
**Exhibit      32.1**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully                complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities                Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                              |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |
|   | (2) | The                information                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|   |
|   |

|                             Date:  November 14,              2006 | /s/ Robert              S. Wiggins                                                |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                   | Robert S.              Wiggins                                                    |
|                                                                                                                                                   | Chairman              of the              Board, President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                                                                                                                                   |
|                                                                                                                                                   |
|                                                                                                                                                   |
|                                                                                                                                                   |
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION www.edgaradvantage.com




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document



EXHIBIT 4(f)

 


 PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

P. O. BOX 2606

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35202-2606  


 EARNINGS ENHANCEMENT DEATH BENEFIT (EEDB) RIDER  


This rider amends the Contract to which it is attached by adding the following provisions and making them part of the Contract as of the EEDB Rider Date. 


 
 

Earnings Enhancement Death Benefit (EEDB)    
  


    At the time we pay the death benefit as provided in the Contract, we will pay an additional amount, if positive, determined by the formula below: 




EEDB
= A × B 





    where




	

A	
 	

=	
 	

40% if the EEDB Rider Date is prior to the oldest Owner's 70th birthday; or

25% if the EEDB Rider Date is on or after the oldest Owner's 70th birthday.
	B	 	=	 	the lesser of:





	(1)
	The
Contract Value minus the Earnings Benefit Base if any Owner dies within 12 months of the EEDB Rider Date, or the death benefit
minus the Earnings Benefit Base if any Owner dies more than 12 months after the EEDB Rider Date; or



	(2)
	200%
of the amount equal to: the Earnings Benefit Base minus Purchase Payments received on or after the date that is 12 months prior
to the deceased Owner's date of death. 





    The
Earnings Benefit Base is equal to: 



	a)
	Contract
Value on the EEDB Rider Date; plus
    



	b)
	Purchase
Payments accepted by the Company after the EEDB Rider Date; minus
    



	c)
	Purchase
Payments withdrawn from the Contract after the EEDB Rider Date, including applicable surrender charges, if any. 






    The
Contract Value and the Earnings Benefit Base are determined as of the end of the Valuation Period during which we receive due proof of death. 



 
 

Change of Owner    
  


The value for A in the EEDB formula is established on the EEDB Rider Date and is not affected by any subsequent change of Owner except the value for A will
become 0% if any new Owner was 70 years old or older on the EEDB Rider Date. 


 
 

Non-natural Owner    
  



If any Owner is not a natural person, provisions referring to Owner will apply to the Annuitant. 


 
 

Termination    
  


This rider terminates on the earlier of: 


	(1)
	Annuity
Commencement Date; or,



	(2)
	The
later of the oldest Owner's 90th birthday or the 10th Contract Anniversary. 






Once
issued, this rider may not otherwise be terminated by either the company or the Owner except by terminating the Contract. 


 
 

Cost    
  



While this rider is in effect, the Mortality and Expense Risk Charge for your Contract is {M&E%} per annum of the average daily net assets of the Variable
Account. The Mortality and Expense Risk Charge will be reduced by 0.25% per annum upon the termination of this rider. 


Signed
for the Company as of the EEDB Rider Date which is {DATE}. 


PROTECTIVE
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 



   






Deborah J. Long

Secretary 









QuickLinks



Earnings Enhancement Death Benefit (EEDB)

Change of Owner

Non-natural Owner

Termination

Cost
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6807

KENNETH BRYANT,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MARIE VARGO, Warden; TERRA MOORE, Medical Administrator; 

S. HICKS, Registered Nurse; CORIZON,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00294-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

 

Kenneth Bryant appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) 

complaint for failure to notify the court of his change of 

address. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 

545-46 (1949). Because Bryant may proceed with his claims by 

filing another complaint and providing an accurate address, the 

order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order with respect 

to those claims nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral 

order. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 

F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED