alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(January 3, 1925.)

#### MARY McCURTAIN, A. J. KOEBEL and WILLIAM J. COSTELLO, Appellants, v. J. W. NEWTON, C. H. VANCURLER, W. M. HOLLEMBAEK, W. C. AMES and J. D. COLLINS, Respondents.

[232 Pac. 565.]

Undertaking on Appeal — Failure to File in Time — Dismissal oe Action.

This court will dismiss an appeal on its own motion when it appears that an undertaking on appeal was not filed within five days after service of the notice of appeal, and that no deposit was made and the undertaking was not waived, as provided in C. S., sec. 7153.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, for Bonner County. Hon. John M. Flynn, Judge.

Action to enjoin the sale of corporate stock. Temporary injunction dissolved and action dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Myrvin Davis and W. J. Costello, for Appellants.

John J. Fitzgerald, for Respondents.

Counsel file no briefs on point decided.

WM. E. LEE, J.

This action was brought to enjoin the sale of certain stock of a corporation because of a failure to pay an assessment. The court issued a temporary injunction. The cause was tried on the merits, and the temporary injunction was dissolved and the action dismissed. The decree was filed June 22, 1923. Notice of appeal to this court was filed June 30, 1923. That the notice of appeal was served by mail is disclosed by an affidavit dated and filed July 2, 1923, the date of mailing the notice not being specifically stated. The clerk of the trial court certifies “that an undertaking on appeal in due form has been properly filed by said plain*402tiffs and appellants on the 12th day of July, 1923, to which no exception has been filed.” It is apparent, therefore, that the undertaking on appeal was filed at least ten days after service of the notice of appeal. Under C. S., sec.- 7153, an appeal to this' court “ .... is ineffectual for any purpose unless within five days after service of the notice of appeal, an undertaking be filed, .... ” The undertaking not having been filed within five days after service of notice of appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. *(Kimzey v. Highland Livestock & Land Co.,*37 Ida. 9, 214 Pac. 750; *Myers v. Harvey,*39 Ida. 724, 229 Pac. 1112, and cases there cited; *Rupert National Bank v. Insurance Company of North America, post,*p. 530, 234 Pac. 465.)

This action is taken by the court on its own motion, the matter not having been, in any manner, by counsel, brought to the court’s attention. In *Myers v. Harvey,*there was a motion to dismiss, but in the two other cases cited above, action was taken by the court on its own motion. That the practice must be uniform and applied to all cases alike there is no room for argument. .

Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent.

McCarthy, C. J., Budge and William A. Lee, JJ., concur.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1998
<CASH>                                          12,944
<SECURITIES>                                    13,191
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,867
<ALLOWANCES>                                       800
<INVENTORY>                                     33,271
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,197
<PP&E>                                         110,062
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,994
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 164,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,313
<BONDS>                                          7,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           790
<OTHER-SE>                                     123,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   164,027
<SALES>                                        102,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,232
<CGS>                                           82,347
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   91,006
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (546)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,765
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,591
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,174
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,174
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45
        



</TABLE>
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
Waymon S. Harbin, Jr., Respondent,

v. State of South Carolina, Petitioner. Appellate Case No. 2009-139675

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Appeal From Anderson County J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Mem orandum Opinion No. 2012-MO-036 Submitted September 20, 2012 – Filed September 26, 2012

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Chief Deputy Attorney Ge neral John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Kaelon Elizabeth May, all of Columbia, for Petitioner State of South Carolina. Bruce A. Byrholdt, of Chap man Byrholdt & Yon, of Anderson, for Respondent.PER CURIAM: 

### After careful consideration of the Appendix and briefs, the writ of certiorari is

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.12


                      AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
                   ELECTED NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION
                    PLAN OF AMERICAN FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION
                    ----------------------------------------


         THIS AMENDMENT, made by the Board of Directors of American Freightways
corporation (the "Company") is effective as of the date indicated below.

                               W-I-T-N-E-S-S-E-T-H

         WHEREAS, the Company sponsors the Amended and Restated Elected
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan of American Freightways Corporation
(the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, paragraph 5 of Section 1 of the Plan authorizes the Board of
Directors of the Company to amend the Plan from time to time; and

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has determined that it
is in the best interests of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries and the
Company's shareholders to amend Section 3 of the Plan to provide for the
treatment of options upon the occurrence of certain events.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


1. Effective as of the date set forth below, the second paragraph of Section 3
(Recapitalizations and Reorganizations) shall be amended by adding at the end
thereof the following sentence:

                  In the event of a merger or consolidation of the Company in
         which the Company does not survive and the agreement of merger or
         consolidation provides that outstanding options shall not terminate (or
         shall be substituted), unless otherwise provided in the agreement of
         merger or consolidation, (i) this Plan shall continue and be effective
         for purposes of administering options previously granted and remaining
         outstanding (or any substituted options), (ii) the successor company
         (or its parent) to such, merger or consolidation shall assume the
         liabilities hereunder and thereunder, and (iii) notwithstanding
         paragraph 3E of Section 2, if an optionee resigns or is terminated as a
         director as a result of or arising from such merger or consolidation of
         the Company, options granted prior to such resignation or termination
         (or any substituted options) shall continue to vest and shall remain
         exercisable for such time and in such manner as if such director had
         not resigned or been terminated, so long as the director agrees to be
         available to consult on matters affecting the Company or its successor
         for the remainder of the vesting period with respect to the options.

This amendment is executed and effective as of this 12th day of November, 2000.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 on Form 10-K of Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (the
Company) for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Adam C. Derbyshire, Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration and
Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (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 as of, and for, the
periods presented in the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Adam C. DerbyshireAdam C. DerbyshireExecutive Vice President, Finance & Administration,    and Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 28, 2011
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Tower Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Andrew S. Samuel, President and Chief Executive 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 the operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                     |  |     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date:    May 6, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Andrew S. Samuel                 
|                     |  |     |  | Andrew S. Samuel                     
|                     |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 89 (Monday, May 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 25925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10972]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


United States Mint

ACTION: Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee May 25, 
2010 Public Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to United States Code, Title 31, section 
5135(b)(8)(C), the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage 
Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for May 25, 2010.
    Date: May 25, 2010.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Location: 8th Floor Board Room, United States Mint, 801 9th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20220.
    Subject: Review and discuss obverse and reverse candidate designs 
for the 2011 United States Army Commemorative Coin Program and the 
obverse and reverse candidate designs for the 2011 Medal of Honor 
Commemorative Coin Program.
    Interested persons should call 202-354-7502 for the latest update 
on meeting time and room location.
    In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5135, the CCAC:
    [mshbox] Advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or 
design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, 
Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals.
    [mshbox] Advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the 
events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of 
commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the 
year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
    [mshbox] Makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level 
for any commemorative coin recommended.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cliff Northup, United States Mint 
Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 
202-354-7200.
    Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the 
CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the following 
number: 202-756-6830.

    Authority:  31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).

    Dated: May 4, 2010.
Edmund C. Moy,
Director, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. 2010-10972 Filed 5-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-37-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CERULEAN
COMPANIES, INC. ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.           
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       239,548,185
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                  76,906,525
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             325,670,588
<CASH>                                      52,159,196
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             587,341,592
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            184,075,293
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         16,077,960
<POLICY-OTHER>                              38,786,536
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       46,645,042
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,094
<OTHER-SE>                                 215,674,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               587,341,592
<PREMIUMS>                               1,189,665,302
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         17,183,747
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                           9,253,506
<OTHER-INCOME>                             117,962,641
<BENEFITS>                               1,032,519,546
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (53,574,596)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,073,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (57,167,759)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (57,167,759)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        
  

</TABLE>
# ilis-- m ELECTRONIC RECORD 

### COA# 01-12-01119-CR OFFENSE: 19.02 (Murder) STYLE: Jessica Tata v. The State of Texas COUNTY: Harris COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 180th District Court DATE: 08/19/2014 Publish: YES TC CASE #: 1300862

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STYLE: Jessica Tata v. The State of Texas CCA #: 

# tW«/¥ APPZLlrAHriS Petition CCA Disposition: FORDISCRETIONARY REVIEW INCCA IS: DATE: 

## f^ofus e</ JUDGE: DATE: /^O //. %W 2^/jT SIGNED: PC:. JUDGE: /°C PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR 

## STrtr^ PKnnQN REHEARING IN CCAIS: FORDISCRETIONARYREVIEW JUDGE: 

# is refund DAIE /=k,A // -20J<T ELECTRONICRECORD JUDGE / ' ?
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 159TH DISTRIC T COURT OF ANGELINA COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 2 9 th
day of September, 2017 , th e cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

ERIC MICHAEL SHINN , Appellant

NO. 12

- 17

- 00246

- CR; Trial Court No. 2017

- 0110

By per curiam opinion.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

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

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this appeal be,

and th e same is, hereby dismissed ; and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all thi ngs have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Tyler, this the 27 th day of November

, 2017.

PAM ESTES , CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned, Brooks F. Sherman, the chief executive officer of Integrated Security Systems, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:



(i)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and;



(ii)

the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.



|                         |                            
|------------------------ | ---------------------------
|Date:  November 15, 2010 | /s/ SHARON T DOHERTY       
|                         | Sharon T. Doherty          
|                         | Chief Financial Officer    
|                         | Principal Financial Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Integrated Security Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Integrated Security Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### STATE ex rel. BOYLE et al., Relators, *v.*DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT et al., Respondents.

(No. 1,803.)

(Submitted April 12, 1902.

Decided July 21, 1902.)

*Contempt*— Supervisory *Control*— Revievl.

On an application for a writ of supervisory control to annul a contempt order, tbe supreme court may look into the evidence properly before it for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was any substantial evidence on which to base the order.

Application by J. Boyle and others for a writ of supervisory control to the district court of the Second judicial district and the Honorable William Clancy, judge thereof, and an-^ other, to annul an order adjudging applicants in contempt.

Application denied.

*Mr. J. M. Mealy, Mr. J. M. Minhle,*and *Messrs. Breen & Mackel,*for Relators.

*Messrs. McMatton & Cotter,*for Respondents.

*135ME. JUSTICE PIGOTT

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.

Application for writ of supervisory control. Tbe petitioners heretofore unsuccessfully sought, by writs of *habeas corpus*and *certiorari,*to annul a judgment of contempt ag’ainst them. *(In re Boyle (State ex rel. Boyle et al.*v. *District Court of Second Judicial*Dist.) 26 Mont. 365, 68 Pac. 409.) They now ask for a writ of supervisory control, and present all tbe evidence taken in tbe court below on tbe bearing. Jurisdiction in this court to grant tbe writ prayed for is questioned. Tbe objection is disposed of by tbe opinion in *Stale ex rel. Sutton*v. *District Court of Second Judicial Dist., ante,*p. 128, 69 Pac. 988.

Upon an application of this kind we may look into tbe evidence properly brought before us for tbe purpose of‘ascertaining whether there was any substantial evidence to justify tbe finding upon which tbe judgment of constructive contempt was based. After careful consideration, we are not prepared to say that such evidence was lacking. The application is therefore denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

*Dismissed.*