alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 1,708.

#### BURKETT et al., Respondents, *v.*SHERLOCK et al., Appellants.

*Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; M. U. Par-leer, Judge.*

On motion to dismiss appeal.

Decided August 4, 1902.

*Mr. George F. Cowan,*and *Mr. T. J. Walsh,*for Appellants.

*Mr. M. P. Gilchrist,*for Respondents.

Per Curiam.

— Upon motion of T. J. Walsh, Esquire, of counsel for appellants, this appeal is dismissed at the cost of appellants.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60386

Summary Calendar

__________________

GUSTAVO VARGAS-URIBE,

a/k/a Gustavo Vargas,

 Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

 Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

A29 398 896

- - - - - - - - - -

April 12, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The record does not show that Gustavo Vargas-Uribe filed a

formal application for suspension of deportation; thus, VargasUribe has failed to establish that the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion when it denied his request to

remand the deportation proceedings to the Immigration Judge. 

Ogbemudia v. INS, 988 F.2d 595, 600 (5th Cir. 1993). 

This court cannot consider the evidence Vargas-Uribe has

submitted with his appellate brief because he did not present it 
No. 95-60386

-2-

to the Immigration Judge or the BIA. Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17

F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994). Although the court may order a

remand to consider additional material evidence pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2347(c), remand is not appropriate in this case

because Vargas-Uribe has failed to show reasonable grounds for

his failure to submit this evidence to the BIA. Id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 for May Limited Partnership 1983-3 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000743453
<NAME>                        May Limited Partnership 1983-3
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                                         184
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  110
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               294
<PP&E>                                         16,577
<DEPRECIATION>                                 15,905
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 966
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          15
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     951
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   966
<SALES>                                        354
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               359
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                233
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            233
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   233
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  10.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  10.40
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 21
----------

The following is a list of wholly-owned subsidiaries, unless otherwise noted, of
FPIC Insurance Group, Inc. as of December 31, 1999:

Name of  Subsidiary                                   State of Incorporation
-------------------                                   ----------------------

Florida Physicians Insurance Company, Inc. (FPIC)           Florida

Anesthesiologists' Professional Assurance Company           Florida

FPIC Insurance Agency, Inc.                                 Florida

McCreary Corporation                                        Florida

Employers Mutual, Inc.                                      Florida

FPIC Services, Inc.                                         Florida

SyMed Development, Inc.                                     Tennessee

Professional Strategy Options, Inc.                         Florida

FPIC Publishing, Inc.                                       Florida

Administrators For The Professions, Inc. (AFP)              New York

Group Data Corporation                                      New York
(100% owned by AFP)

FPIC Intermediaries, Inc.                                   New York
(100% owned by AFP)

The Tenere Group, Inc. (Tenere)                             Missouri
(100% owned by FPIC)

Intermed Insurance Company (Intermed)                       Missouri
(100% owned by Tenere)

Trout Insurance Services, Inc.                              Missouri
(100% owned by Intermed)

Interlex Insurance Company                                  Missouri
(100% owned by Intermed)

Insurance Services, Inc.                                    Missouri
(100% owned by Intermed)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                        CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CEO AND CFO
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of First McMinnville Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Charles C. Jacobs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/  Charles C. Jacobs
--------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
May 12, 2006

----------
 *As set forth in Item 601 of Regulation S-K, any certification furnished
 pursuant to this Item will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of
 the Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the
 liability of that section.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2257 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2257

     To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Diiodomethyl-p-
                             tolylsulfone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2000

  Mr. Breaux introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Diiodomethyl-p-
                             tolylsulfone.

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

SECTION 1. DIIODOMETHYL-P-TOLYLSULFONE.

    (a) In General.--Subheading 9902.32.90 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/2001'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2004''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Mexican Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending January 3, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curt Glowacki, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Curt Glowacki








Curt Glowacki


Chief Executive Officer


April 1, 2010





The foregoing certification is being forwarded solely pursuant to 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 should not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
v150341_10-719 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


     

    Exhibit
10.71.8
No. 1,423

#### FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BUTTE, Respondent, *v.*ELLINGWOOD et al., Appellants.

*Appeal from District. Court, Silver Bow County.*

On motion to dismiss appeal.

Decided February 26, 1902.

*Mr. Charles B. Leonard,*for Appellants.

*Messrs. Kirie &*Clinton, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The motion to- dismiss this appeal is hereby sustained and the appeal is dismissed.
exv10w9











EXHIBIT 10.09




JOINT FILING AGREEMENT



Each of the undersigned hereby agrees and consents that the Schedule 13D/A filed herewith (the
“Schedule 13D/A”) by Cornerstone BioPharma Holdings, Ltd. is filed on behalf of each of them
pursuant to the authorization of the undersigned to make such filing and that such Schedule 13D/A
is filed jointly on behalf of each of them, pursuant to Sections 13(d) and 13(g) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules promulgated thereunder, including Rule 13d-1(k)(1).
Each of the undersigned hereby agrees that such Schedule 13D/A is, and any further amendments to
the Schedule 13D/A will be, filed on behalf of each of the undersigned. Each of the persons is not
responsible for the completeness or accuracy of the information concerning the other persons making
this filing unless such person knows or has reason to believe that such information is inaccurate.
This agreement may be signed in counterparts. This agreement is
effective as of May 18, 2009.




	 	 	 	 	 
	

Dated: May 18, 2009 	CORNERSTONE BIOPHARMA HOLDINGS, LTD.





 	 
	 	/s/ Craig A. Collard
 	 
	 	Name:  	Craig A. Collard 	 
	 	Title:  	President and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	CAROLINA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

 	 
	 	/s/ Craig A. Collard
 	 
	 	Name:  	Craig A. Collard 	 
	 	Title:  	Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	CAROLINA PHARMACEUTICALS HOLDINGS, LTD.

 	 
	 	/s/ Craig A. Collard
 	 
	 	Name:  	Craig A. Collard 	 
	 	Title:  	Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	                         /s/ Craig A. Collard
 	 
	 	Craig A. Collard
#### Lehfart v. Scharre, et al.

(Decided May 30, 1911.)

Appeal fr.om Jefferson Circuit Court

Wills — ¡Construction of — One clause of a will ¡gave to tlie wife certain property, with, the power of disposition; in another clause it was provided that in the event of her marriage she should only have a life éstate and no right to dispose of the property; Held: that the wife toot the fee, subject to be defeated by her inarriage.

.ZIMMERMAN' & KIRiEIGKEIR, for appellant.

E. L. 'MicDON-ADD for appellees.

Opinion op- the Coxjbt by

Judge Cabeoll

Affirming.

Hermán Lockner in Ms last will, after making several specific devises, provided in clauses- five, six and seven as follows:

> “5. The rest and residue of my entire estate, both real and personal, I give and bequeath to my wife, Maria Eva, with full power to sell and convey the same or any part thereof, and her deed shall pass a fee simple title and the purchaser, is nok.required to look to the application of the purchase money, and she may dispose of my property by will. •

> “6. If my wife should marry again, then in that event her right to sell and’ convey my real or personal estate or dispose of the same by will shall cease and she shall only have a life estate.

> “7. I appoint my wife, Maria Eva, as executrix of this my last will and testament, without bond or security, with full power on her part as executrix to sell and’ convey a.ny and all of my real or personal estate for re-investment or otherwise, and her deed’ as executrix shall pass a fee simple title, and the purchaser is not required to look to the application of the purchase money.?’...

The widow of Lockner died, without having re-married, and the only question presented for decision is, did the will invest her with the.fee subject to be defeated if she should marry, or, did she take only a life estate.

Reading clauses five, six and, seven together, and •gathering from them the intention of the testator, we *850think his purpose was to invest her with the fee in the event she did not marry. There can be no donbt that under clause five, considered alone, she took the fee, and clause six clearly indicates that the testator only intended to limit her to a life estate in the event that she married. The power of disposition conferred in clause seven refers to the contingency of his widow marrying. If she married she had the right to dispose of the estate as executrix, but for re-investment only, as, in the event of her marriage she only took a life estate. The will is rather awkwardly written, but it seems the testator did not intend to put any limitation upon the title of the widow or her power of disposition unless she married. ■It also appears that in the event she married, he wanted her to have the right to sell and convey the property, but only for- re-investment. There are no words indicating a purpose on the part of the testator to limit the estate given to the widow by the fifth clause, except in the contingency of her marriage.

Wherefore, the judgment of the lower court holding that the widow took the fee is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Franklin Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: May 14, 2008
    /s/ Daniel T. VoelpelDaniel T. VoelpelVice President and Chief Financial Officer
# Rejected Treaties

**

----

1            Approved on May 26, 1960, with vote of 77 to 4; vote immediately            followed by motion to reconsider, and on second vote treaty was            rejected 49 to 30; second motion to reconsider was introduced on May            27, 1960, but was not taken up; treaty remained on calendar of            Committee on Foreign Relations until 2000, when it was returned to            the president.        

2            Rejected on March 8, 1983, with vote of 50 to 42; motion to            reconsider was entered but not taken up; treaty remained on calendar            of Committee on Foreign Relations until 1998, when it was returned            to the president as part of the resolution of ratification for            Montreal Protocol No. 4.        

Return to current Treaties | Return to About Treaties

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Related Links 

Treaty Action in the Senate

**Executive Calendars**CurrentPast CalendarsAbout the *Executive Calendar*

**Related Reports***Senate Consideration of Treaties* (CRS) (PDF)*Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role in the Senate* (GPO-govInfo) (PDF)

### Related Link 

About Treaties
----

|                                                |   |                                                                                 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  November 5, 2009    |   | /s/ Richard A. Hubbell                                                               |   |
|                                                |   | Richard A. HubbellPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|                                                |   |                                                                                 |   |

|                                                |   |                                                                                                            |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  November 5, 2009    |   | /s/ Ben M. Palmer                                                                                               |   |
|                                                |   | Ben M. PalmerVice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
|                                                |   |                                                                                                            |   |
ACCEPTED 01-15-00124-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/25/2015 10:43:11 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
[File No. 6985]

#### UNION BROKERAGE COMPANY, North Dakota Corporation, Respondent, v. NORMAN JENSEN, Appellant.

(20 NW2d 343)

Opinion filed October 23, 1945

*L. J. Falda, Jr.,*and *Ordner T. Bundlie,*fór appellant.

*Earl Walter*and *Leonard Eriksson,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

This is an action for damages. The defendant did not answer or demur, but moved for a dismissal of the action on the grounds that “the plaintiff has no authority, capacity, or legal right to sue, prosecute, and maintain” the action; that the plaintiff for more than one year preceding the commencement of the action has not been conducting its usual and corporate business in the state as required by law; that for more than one year preceding the commencement of the action the plaintiff failed and neglected to keep and maintain a public office at any place within North Dakota for the transaction of its corporate business; and that for more than one year preceding the commencement of the action plaintiff failed to execute and file with the Secretary of State an instrument in writing-constituting and appointing said Secretary of State or his successor as its true and lawful agent and attorney upon whom process may be served. Certain affidavits were submitted in *155support of said motion. The motion was brought on for hearing pursuant to notice. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant has appealed. The plaintiff has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground, among others, .that the order is not appealable.

The motion to dismiss the appeal must be granted. Appeals from interlocutory orders will lie only in the cases authorized by the statute. Stimson v. Stimson, 30 ND 78, 152 NW 132; Ostlund v. Ecklund, 42 ND 83, 171 NW 857. This court has repeatedly held that under the statute of this state (ND Rev Code 1943, § 28-2702; Comp Laws 1913, § 7841) an appeal does not lie either from an order dismissing an action (Re Weber, 4 ND 119, 59 NW 523, 23 LRA 621; Field v. Great Western Elevator Co. 5 ND 400, 67 NW 147; Lough v. White, 13 ND 387, 100 NW 1084; Cameron v. Great Northern R. Co. 8 ND 124, 77 NW 1016; Hanberg v. National Bank, 8 ND 328, 79 NW 336; Larson v. Walker, 17 ND 247, 115 NW 838; Dibble v. Hanson, 17 ND 21, 114 NW 371, 16 Ann Cas 1210; Malherek v. Fargo, 49 ND 123, 190 NW 176; Grain Growers’ Grain Co. v. Michigan, 52 ND 785, 204 NW 838), or from an order denying a motion to dismiss an action. Strecker v. Railson, 19 ND 677, 125 NW 560; John Miller Co. v. Minckler, 30 ND 360, 152 NW 664; Security Nat. Bank v. Bothne, 56 ND 269, 217 NW 148. See, also, Ellingson v. Northwestern Jobbers Credit Bureau, 58 ND 754, 227 NW 360; Wall v. First Nat. Bank, 49 ND 703, 193 NW 51; Torgerson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 51 ND 745, 200 NW 1013; Bowen v. Montana L. Ins. Co. 49 ND 140, 190 NW 314; Baird v. Lefor, 52 ND 155, 201 NW 997, 38 ALR 807; Warren v. Slaybaugh, 58 ND 904, 228 NW 416; Burdick v. Mann, 59 ND 611, 231 NW 545; McKivergin v. Atwood, 63 ND 73, 246 NW 41.

Appeal dismissed.

ChristiaNSON, Ch. J., and Morris, Burke, Nuessle and Burr, J\T., concur.
#### John Janack, Jr., Appellant, v. Benson Mines Company, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concurred, except Betts, J., dissenting.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of CARBO Ceramics Inc. of our report dated February 20, 2004, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of CARBO Ceramics Inc. included
in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

-        Form S-8 No. 33-25845 (the CARBO Ceramics Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan
         for Key Employees)

-        Form S-8 No. 333-88100 (the CARBO Ceramics Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan
         for Key Employees, As Amended)

-        Form S-8 No. 333-91252 (the 1996 Stock Option Plan of Pinnacle
         Technologies, Inc., As Amended and Restated)

                                            Ernst & Young LLP

New Orleans, Louisiana
March 1, 2004