alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### B. B. Odom, plaintiff in error, *vs.*William C. Gill, defendant in error.

An appeal would, by section 3554 of tlxe Code, lie from the verdict of the jury in the County Court, in a collateral issue, at the discretion of the Judge presidiixg in said Court.

County Court. Appeal. Collateral issue. Before Judge Clark. Lee Superior Court. March Term, 1872.

B. B. Odom obtained a rule absolute against William C. Gill, former sheriff of Lee county, at the February Term, 1861, of Lee Inferior Court, requiring him to pay to said Odom the sum of $304 50 principal, and $15 85 interest, within sixty days, or on failure thereof to be attached for contempt.

The money was never paid. The Inferior Court was abolished, and its business transferred to the County Court. At the January Term, 1867, of the County Court, William C. Gill upon divers grounds moved that the aforesaid rule absolute and order for attachment be vacated. Odom traversed the grounds of the motion, and the issues were submitted to a jury, which found in favor of the movant. Application *246was made by respondent for the privilege of appealing to the Superior Court. The Court allowed the appeal. When the case was called in the Superior Court, Gill moved to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that the case could not be brought up in that manner. The motion was allowed and the appeal dismissed. To which ruling Odom excepted, and now assigns the same as error.

R. J. *&*L. P. D. Warren, for plaintiff in error.

Fred. H. West, represented by Clark & Goss, for defendant.

McCay, Judge.

This appeal must have been dismissed without any examination of the Code. Section 3554, Revised Code, expressly provides that an appeal will lie to the Superior Court, from the verdict of a jury in the County Court, on a collateral issue: *Provided,*the Judge of the County Court, in the exercise of his discretion, permits it. This, as the record shows, the Judge of the County Court has done, and the right to appeal would seem to be complete. It has been argued, that as it does not affirmatively appear, that this appeal was upon payment of costs and giving bond for the eventual condemnation money, the appeal was properly dismissed on that ground. It would hardly be fair to sustain this dismissal on that ground; no such point was made in the Court below. Perhaps had this ground been insisted on, it might have been possible for the appellant to perfect the record, by showing the cost had been paid and bond given. But we are not sure this was necessary. The statute says the appeal is to be at the discretion of the Judge. The very nature of such an issue being as it is only collateral to the fiual judgment, would seem to be outside of the reason of the law requiring costs to be paid and bond given in case of appeals. The appeal is provided for in lieu of a new trial, which is the course such issues take in the Superior Court.

Judgment reversed.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2289 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:24:06 Page 1 of

5
Exhibit A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2289 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:24:06 Page 2 of

5
Exhibit A

Notice Parties Service List

Served via first class mail

NAME NOTICE NAME ADDRESS 1 ADDRESS 2 CITY STATE ZIP

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Attn: Abid Qureshi One Bryant Park Bank of America Tower New York NY 10036-6743

BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP Attn: Robert A. Julian, Cecily A. Dumas 11601 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1400 Los Angeles CA 90025-0509

Jones Day Attn: Bruce S. Bennett 555 South Flower Street 15th Floor Los Angeles CA 90071-2300

Milbank LLP Attn: Gregory A. Bray 2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor Los Angeles CA 90067

Scott McNutt 324 Warren Road San Mateo CA 94402-1038

Singleton Law Firm, APC Attn: Gerald Singleton, Esq 115 West Plaza Street Solana Beach CA 92075-1123

TOGUT, SEGAL & SEGAL LLP Attn: Albert Togut One Penn Plaza Suite 3335 New York NY 10119

U.S. Department of Justice Attn: Marta E. Villacorta 450 Golden Gate Avenue, #05-0153 San Francisco CA 94102-3431

U.S. Department of Justice Attn: Hannah M. McCollum 844 King Street Suite 2207, Lockbox 35 Wilmington DE 19801-3519

U.S. Department of Justice Attn: Matthew J. Troy P.O. Box 875 Ben Franklin Station Washington DC 20044-0875

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Attn: Stephen Karotkin, Kevin Bostel, Matthew Goren 767 Fifth Avenue New York NY 10153-0119

In re: PG&E Corporation, et al.

Case No. 19-30088 Page 1 of 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2289 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:24:06 Page 3 of

5
Exhibit B

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2289 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:24:06 Page 4 of

5
Form TRANSC

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

Northern District of California

In re Debtor(s):

PG&E Corporation

Case No.: 19−30088 DM 11

Chapter: 11

NOTICE OF FILING OF TRANSCRIPT

AND DEADLINES RELATED TO RESTRICTION AND REDACTION

A transcript of the proceeding held on May 22, 2019 was filed on May 23, 2019. The following deadlines apply:

The parties have until Thursday, May 30, 2019 to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this

transcript. The deadline for filing a request for redaction is Thursday, June 13, 2019.

If a request for redaction is filed, the redacted transcript is due Monday, June 24, 2019.

If no such notice is filed, the transcript may be made available for remote electronic access upon expiration of the

restriction period, which is Wednesday, August 21, 2019, unless extended by court order.

To review the transcript for redaction purposes, you may purchase a copy from the transcriber,

Jason Gottlieb

Attn: Jason Gottlieb, Dir. of Tran. Ops.

7227 N 16th St. #207

Phoenix, AZ 85020

or you may view the document at the clerk's office public terminal.

Dated: 5/28/19 For the Court:

Edward J. Emmons

Clerk of Court

United States Bankruptcy Court

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2289 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:24:06 Page 5 of

5
#### Eva W. Simmons, Plaintiff, v. Central N. E. and Western Railroad Company, Defendant.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.;

Barnard, P.J., not sitting.
EXHIBIT C 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2435-3 Filed: 06/06/19 Entered: 06/06/19 14:32:24 Page 1

of 2
EXPENSE SUMMARY 

APRIL 1, 2019 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2019 

EXPENSES AMOUNTS

Computerized Research $0 

Meals $0 

Travel $0 

Transportation $44.61 

Duplicating $0 

Transcription Services $1,240.25 

Telephone Conferencing $0 

Messenger $810.48 

Filing Fees $610.00 

Total Expenses Requested: $2,705.34 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2435-3 Filed: 06/06/19 Entered: 06/06/19 14:32:24 Page 2

of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 103 (Friday, May 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 30002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12902]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Federal Advisory Committee; Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault 
in the Military Services

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Termination of federal advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 
1972, (5 U.S.C. Appendix), 41 CFR 102-3.55 and consistent with the 
Sunset Provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2005, subtitle K, section 576, Public Law 108-375, the Department 
of Defense gives notice that it is terminating the Defense Task Force 
on Sexual Assault in the Military Services, effective June 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Freeman, Deputy Committee 
Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-601-6128.

    Dated: May 25, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-12902 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
Exhibit 99.1


			  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
		SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of MidSouth Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 (the
"Report"), I, C.R. Cloutier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify 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.



________________________
C.R. Cloutier
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Aviv Efrat, Chief Financial Officer of PennantPark Investment
Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-K of PennantPark Investment 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
company as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;

4. The companys other certifying officer 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 company and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the
companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial
reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.



|                         
|-------------------------
|Dated: December 12, 2007.
|                         
|/s/    AVIV EFRAT        
|Aviv Efrat               
|Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION





Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (“Globe”), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of Globe on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Globe. This written statement is being
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Globe and will be retained by Globe and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date: September 16, 2011
By:
/s/ Jeff BradleyJeff BradleyChief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Date: September 16, 2011
By:
/s/ Malcolm AppelbaumMalcolm AppelbaumChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 99.1


                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                             OF 99 CENTS ONLY STORES


     This  certification  is  provided  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the
"Report")  for  the  period ended December 31, 2002 of 99 Cents Only Stores (the
"Issuer").

      I, David Gold, the Chief Executive Officer of Issuer certify that to the
best of my knowledge:

      (i)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
            78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: March 28, 2003.


                                     /s/  David  Gold
                                     -------------------------------
                                     Name:  David Gold
                                     Title: Chief Executive  Officer


                                      -81-
<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,660
<SECURITIES>                                    33,058
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,869
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,558
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,501
<PP&E>                                           7,878
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,860
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  85,308
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,307
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           137
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,614
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    85,308
<SALES>                                         42,192
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,192
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,576
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,245
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,592
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,825
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,029
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,796
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,796
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13


</TABLE>
#### LUTHER C. ATKINSON and Wife, FRANCES M. ATKINSON, v. CHARLOTTE BUILDERS, INC., and WILLIAM C. TAYLOR.

(Filed 3 May, 1950.)

Fraud § 4—

A positive representation by the seller’s agent, acting within the scope of his employment, that the house, the subject of sale then under negotiation, was brick veneer when in fact it was built of “speed brick” which allowed the seepage of water destructive of plaster and paint on the inside, *held*sufficient to support an action for fraud even in the absence of *scienter,*since a person who is in a position to know the truth may be *68lield liable for a misrepresentation made in conscious and reckless ignorance of its truth or falsity when such representation is made to induce the sale and is reasonably relied on by the purchaser.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Faltón, Special Judge,*November Term, 1949, of MecKlenburg.

Reversed.

This was an action for damages for fraud and deceit in the sale of a house. At the close of plaintiffs’ evidence, defendants’ motion for judgment of nonsuit was allowed, and from judgment dismissing the action plaintiffs appealed.

*Jay W. Alexander, Jr., for plaintiffs, appellants.*

*Lassiter & Moore for defendants, appellees.*

DeviN, J.

We think the plaintiffs offered evidence, when considered in the light most favorable for them, sufficient to carry the case to the jury.

The testimony tended to show that the defendants’ agent, who admittedly was acting within the scope of his employment, represented to the plaintiffs that the house, the subject of sale then being negotiated, was constructed of brick veneering, and that plaintiffs relied on this representation and were induced thereby to make the purchase, whereas in truth and in fact the house was built of what is called “speed brick”— a hollow brick without air space between brick and plaster — a kind of structure which permits water to pass through, destructive of plaster and paint on the inside.

Defendants argue absence of evidence of *scienter*as ground upon which the nonsuit should be sustained. However, it is well settled that a false representation positively made by one who ought in the discharge of his duty to have known the truth and who is consciously and recklessly ignorant whether it be true or false, may be regarded as fraudulent when made to induce a sale and reasonably relied on by. the vendee. *Modlin v. R. R.,*145 N.C. 218, 58 S.E. 1075; *Whitehurst v. Insurance Co.,*149 N.C. 273, 62 S.E. 1067; *Bank v. Yelverton,*185 N.C. 314, 117 S.E. 299; *Stone v. Milling Co.,*192 N.C. 585, 135 S.E. 449; *Silver v. Skidmore, 213*N.C. 231, 195 S.E. 775; *Small v. Dorsett,*223 N.C. 754, 28 S.E. 2d 514. *Harding v. Insurance Co.,*218 N.C. 129, 10 S.E. 2d 599, is not controlling on the facts here presented.

Without discussing the evidence further, we think it sufficient to survive a motion for nonsuit, and that the judgment below must be

Reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                            31,800
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     45,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                       2,400
<INVENTORY>                                      271,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 380,800
<PP&E>                                           309,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                   111,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   612,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            229,500
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             300
<OTHER-SE>                                       267,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     612,200
<SALES>                                        1,880,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,880,000
<CGS>                                          1,294,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,294,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 426,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 2,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  156,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                      48,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              108,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      65,800
<EPS-BASIC>                                         3.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       3.00



</TABLE>
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2322-3    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 15:16:23    Page 1of 13

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2322-3    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 15:16:23    Page 2of 13

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2322-3    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 15:16:23    Page 3of 13

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2322-3    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 15:16:23    Page 4of 13

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2322-3    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 15:16:23    Page 5of 13

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2322-3    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 15:16:23    Page 6of 13

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2322-3    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 15:16:23    Page 7of 13

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2322-3    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 15:16:23    Page 8of 13

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2322-3    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 15:16:23    Page 9of 13

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2322-3    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 15:16:23    Page 10of 13

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2322-3    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 15:16:23    Page 11of 13

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2322-3    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 15:16:23    Page 12of 13

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2322-3    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 15:16:23    Page 13of 13
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2941

_____________________________

BUD CHRISTOPHER CHATMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jan Shackelford, Judge.

February 27, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BILBREY, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tabitha Rae Herrera, 

Assistant Attorney General, and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 26, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00105

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.W., A CHILD

,

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1995EM501946 The Honorable Nick Catoe, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record in this case was electronically recorded. On May 2, 2016 we

ordered the court recorder to file the audiota pes, logs, and the transcript of the proceedings on or before May 27, 2016. The audiotape and log were filed on May 4, 2016.

On May 25, 2016, a notification of late record was filed stating that the transcript was expected to be completed by June 10, 201 6. An extension of time to file the transcript is GRANTED. The transcript is due on June 10, 2016.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 26th day of May, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court