alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed October 4, 2018.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-00045-CV

RUBY GOODACRE, Appellant

V.

COURTYARDS AT KIRNWOOD, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-05543-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Evans, and Brown

Opinion by Justice Brown

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated June 18, 2018, we notified

appellant that the time for filing her brief had expired and instructed her to file the brief with an 

appropriate extension motion within ten days. We further cautioned appellant that failure to file 

her brief within the specified time would result in dismissal of the appeal. 

To date, appellant has not filed a brief or otherwise communicated with the Court regarding 

the status of the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 

42.3(b), (c).

180045F.P05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

RUBY GOODACRE, Appellant

No. 05-18-00045-CV V.

COURTYARDS AT KIRNWOOD, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-05543-C.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. 

Justices Myers and Evans participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 4th day of October, 2018.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                  3,531
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                           5,780
<ALLOWANCES>                              143
<INVENTORY>                             9,078
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       19,132
<PP&E>                                 27,145
<DEPRECIATION>                          6,444
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         56,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   8,185
<BONDS>                                10,962
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                  636
<OTHER-SE>                             36,706
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           56,489
<SALES>                                33,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       46,027
<CGS>                                  23,552
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          30,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        8,203
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        920
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         6,187
<INCOME-TAX>                            2,445
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     3,805
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            3,805
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.62




</TABLE>
#### J. L. MILLS, Jr., v. ROZENA MILLS et al.

(Filed 14 June, 1933.)

Appeal and Error K to — Judgment in this case, evidently entered under misapprehension of facts, is vacated and the cause remanded.

In this case the mortgagor sought to enjoin foreclosure under the power of sale contained in the instrument, and to have the land sold, if at all, by decree of the court. The trial court dissolved a temporary order entered in the cause, and decreed foreclosure at instance of mortgagor over *727objection of mortgagee without adequate pleading or showing, and later entered supplemental order attempting to correct some of the findings of fact but reaffirming the court’s original conclusions. On appeal the judgment and its attempted correction are vacated, and the cause remanded for further i>roceedings as to justice appertains.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Grady, J.,*at Chambers, Clinton, N. 0., 30 December, 1932.

Civil action by mortgagor to restrain sale of land under foreclosure of deed of trust, to declare attempted sale thereunder void, to enjoin delivery of deed, and to have property sold, if sold at all, by order of a court of equity. The mortgagee seeks to proceed under the power of sale contained in the deed of trust.

Temporary restraining order issued *1*December, 1932, by Judge Harris, returnable before Judge Grady, resident judge, at chambers in Clinton, 23 December, -1932.

On 26 December, Judge Grady dissolved the temporary injunction, ordered that deed be tendered purchaser at sale and upon failure of purchaser to comply with bid, a commissioner was appointed to make sale after thirty days notice, etc. The defendant does not ask. for foreclosure in equity, but resists it.

On 30 December, 1932, a supplemental order was entered by Judge Grady attempting to correct some of the findings of fact set out in his first judgment, and reaffirming his original conclusions.

Plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

*Ward & Ward for plaintiff.*

*No counsel appearing for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.

As the judgment of 26 December, 1932, went beyond the purview of the case, in that, foreclosure was decreed at instance of mortgagor over objection of mortgagee, without adequate pleading or showing, and was evidently entered on a misapprehension of the facts— later attempted to be corrected — it would seem that, in order to preserve the rights of the parties, the judgment ought to be stricken out, as well as its attempted correction.

The judgment, therefore, will be vacated, and the cause remanded for further proceedings as to justice appertains and as the rights of the parties may require.

Error.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA on Relation of the COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE v. BROWN REALTY COMPANY.

(Filed 25 January, 1933.)

Appeal and Error J c — It will be assumed that judgment is supported by necessary facts in absence of findings of fact or request therefor.

Where no facts are found by the trial court, and no request is made therefor by the appellant, it will be assumed, in an action involving the appellant’s right to a refund on income taxes paid to the Commissioner of Revenue, that the judgment is supported by the essential facts, and it will be affirmed on appeal.

Appeal by defendant from *Sink,*J., at June Term, 1932, of BuncoMbe.

Affirmed.

*John H. Cathey and Isabel Cathey for appellant.*

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for appellee.*

Pee. Cueiam.

The defendant filed a petition before the State Department of Revenue for a revision of its income tax assessment for the income year of 1925, and for a refund of taxes claimed to have been paid in excess of the amount actually due.

For the income tax year of 1925 the defendant made its income tax return to R. A. Doughton, Commissioner of Revenue, and upon this *124return the income tax was assessed and a part of it was paid. Sometime afterwards the defendant was allowed a refund of taxes from the Federal Government based upon certain collections and changes, as will appear by reference to pages 21-25 of the case on appeal.

The defendant reported this refund to the State Department of Revenue as required by law and the Revenue Commissioner made a reexamination of the tax returns and refunded to the defendant the sum of $1,000. The defendant contends that this payment is not a bar to a further hearing of its claim for a refund, while the Commissioner insists that the payment was intended to be final. The controversy seems to depend on the question whether section 502 of the Revenue Act makes it mandatory upon the Commissioner to adopt the correction made in the Federal income tax report and assessment. The material part of section 502 is as follows: “The Commissioner shall thereupon proceed to determine, from such evidence as he may have brought to his attention or shall otherwise acquire, the correct net income of such taxpayer for the fiscal or calendar year, and if there shall be any additional tax due from such taxpayer the same shall be assessed and collected, and if there shall have been an overpayment of the tax, the said Commissioner shall, within 30 days after the final determination of the net income of such taxpayer, refund the amount of such excess.”

The trial court adjudged that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any sum whatever in refund of any taxes heretofore paid to the State Revenue Department.

The court found no facts, but in the absence of the request to this effect by the appellant, we must assume that the judgment is based upon such facts as are essential to support it. *We*think the judgment is free from error and that it should be

Affirmed.
CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

           We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statements  on Forms S-3 and S-8 of our  reports  dated April 13, 1998 and April
15,  1998  with  respect  to the  consolidated  financial  statements  of  Genta
Incorporated  included in the Genta Incorporated  Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended  December  31,  1997 and  Amendment  No. 1 thereto,  respectively
(collectively,  the "Genta 1997 Annual  Report")  and our report dated April 13,
1998 with respect to the financial  statements of Genta Jago Technologies  B.V.,
included in the Genta 1997 Annual Report.

                                                  /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                  -------------------------
                                                  ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Diego, California
April 16, 1998
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Increase benefits by 20 percent for all beneficiaries as of the beginning of 2010 and for those newly eligible for benefits after the beginning of 2010. |
|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified November 4, 2009 |
#### TOM BULLARD v. FRANCIS PHILLIPS.

(Filed 10 April, 1957.)

Animals § 3: Automobiles § 10%—

Evidence that defendant was driving some seven or eight cattle along a much traveled highway in the nighttime without lights, warning, or any notice to the traveling public, tha-t one of the cows jumped in front of plaintiff’s ear, and that plaintiff’s car was damaged in the resulting collision, *held*sufficient to overrule defendant’s motion for nonsuit.

Appeal by defendant from *Johnston, J.,*and a jury, at November Term, 1956, of YadKIN.

*Hall & Zachary for defendant, appellant.*

*Allen, Henderson & Williams for plaintiff, appellee.*

*88Per Curiam.

Civil action in tort arising out of a collision of an automobile with a cow. The plaintiff was driving his automobile after dark along Highway #601 between Mocksville and Yadkinville, when suddenly a cow belonging to the defendant jumped in front of the car and was struck and killed.

The plaintiff alleged that the collision was caused by the negligence of the defendant in driving a herd of untied cattle, some seven or eight in number, along a much traveled highway in the nighttime without lights, warning, or any notice to the traveling public. The defendant denied negligence, pleaded contributory negligence, and set up a cross action for the loss of his cow. Each party introduced evidence in support of his allegations, and the court submitted to the jury all the issues raised by the pleadings. The jury answered the issues in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him damages in the sum of $400. From judgment on the verdict, the defendant appeals, assigning as the only error the refusal of the court to allow his motion for nonsuit at the close of the evidence.

We have reviewed carefully the evidence and find it amply sufficient to sustain the ruling of the trial court. The appeal presents no question requiring extended discussion.

No error.
#### FRYE CHEVROLET COMPANY, INC., v. O. J. HOLDER, COLINE S. EDMISTEN and J. C. EDMISTEN.

(Filed 10 April, 1940.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Cowper, Special Judge,*at January Term, 1940, of Caldwell.

No error.

From judgment on verdict in favor of defendant J. C. Edmisten, plaintiff appealed.

*Pritchett & Strickland for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Max C. Wilson for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff instituted action on a note wbicb it was alleged defendant J. C. Edmisten bad endorsed. Tbis defendant denied that be bad endorsed tbe note, or authorized anyone to sign bis name thereto. Tbe jury accepted tbe defendant’s version of tbe transaction and rendered verdict in bis favor. On tbe record, we find no ruling of tbe court below wbicb would justify setting aside tbe verdict and judgment. Tbe plaintiff’s assignments of error cannot be sustained.

No error.
#### L. W. GODWIN, Administrator, v. BANK OF AURORA et al.

(Filed 5 October, 1932.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Cranmer, J.,*at May Term, 1932, of Pitt.

Civil action by L. *W.*Godwin, administrator of the estate of Mary Gaskins, to recover $251.00, the amount on deposit in the Bank of Aurora to the credit of the deceased at the time of her death.

The defense was, that the money on deposit had been paid to *W.*A. Thompson, administrator.

*846
      *J ohn Hill Paylor and J ohn B. Lewis for plaintiff.*

*J. B. J ames and MacLean & Rodman for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

Mary Gaskins was the personal representative of her deceased husband, W. H. Gaskins, but died before completing the administration of his estate. W. A. Thompson was appointed administrator, *d. b. n.*of W. H. Gaskins’ estate, and was paid the deposit in question. The case turns on whether the money on deposit with the defendant bank at the time of Mary Gaskins’ death belonged to her individually or was held by her as the personal representative of her husband’s estate. The evidence is equivocal, and requires the intervention of a jury to determine the issue.

Beversed.
EXHIBIT  32.2


                        NEOMETRIX TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.
                            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 Neometrix technology Group,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Norman J. Birmingham, the Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 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/ NORMAN J. BIRMINGHAM
----------------------------------------
Norman J. Birmingham
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
September 15, 2003



The foregoing certifications are made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for
any other purpose.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30618]



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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Freight Forwarder License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission applications for licenses as ocean 
freight forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(46 U.S.C. App. 1718 and 46 CFR 510).
    Persons knowing of any reason why any of the following applicants 
should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Freight Forwarders, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C. 
20573.

Amerford FMS, Inc., 441 N. Oak Street, Inglewood, CA 90302, 
Officers: Michael O Elze, President, Samuel Young, Treasurer
Mark Fromm, 882 Fair Acres Avenue, Westfield, NJ 07090, Sole 
Proprietor
All American Worldwide, Inc., 211 West Comstock, Dallas, TX 75208, 
Officers: Judson H. Good, President, Robert A. Nero, Vice President
Pacific Multi-Modal, Inc., 840 W. 12th Street, Long Beach, CA 90813, 
Officers: Abraham R. Walker, CEO, Karen L. Walker, President
Pactrans Marine Inc., 9520 La Cienega Blvd., Inglewood, CA 90301, 
Officers: Jesse Domingo, Director, C.T. Tsui, Vice President
Interpacific Airmarine, Inc., 555 Redondo Beach Blvd. #160, Gardena, 
CA 90248, Officer: Jae H. Chang, President
Robinson Expediters, Inc., 9675 NW 13th Street, Miami, FL 33172, 
Officers: Jorge Robinson, President, Ebba Robinson, Vice President
Distribution Support Management, Inc., 75 Northcrest, Newman, GA 
30265, Officers: Arthur G. Neil, Jr., President, Joan H. Neil, 
Secretary
JRM International Forwarding, Inc., 1743 Christie Drive, Marietta, 
GA 30066, Officers: Rose-Marie Miller, President, James Ivey Miller, 
Secretary
Ace Forwarding, Inc., 510 Plaza Drive, Suite #2760, Atlanta, GA 
30349, Officers: Kim McGurgan, President, Frank Petillon, Director

    Dated: December 12, 1995.

    By the Federal Maritime Commission.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30618 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 75th 

Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% -0.24% -0.35% -2.24% -4.69%

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: Give parents earnings credits for up to five years if they have a child under 6. The 

earnings credited for a childcare year would be such that the resulting earnings assigned to the parents 

would equal one half of the Social Security average-wage index -- about $21,021 in 2009. The credits 

would be available for all past years to newly eligible retired-worker and disabled-worker beneficiaries in 

2010 and later. The 5 most advantageous years would be used if more than 5 childcare credit years are 

possible; that is, the 5 years that make the biggest difference in indexed earnings.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

November 18, 2009

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% 1.31% 3.64% -0.69% -0.70%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

August 26, 2009

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: Progressive price indexing of PIA formula factors beginning with individuals newly 

eligible for OASI benefits in 2013. Create new bend point at the 30th percentile of earners. Maintain 

current-law benefits for earners at the 30th percentile and below and reduce upper 2 formula factors 

(32% and 15%) such that maximum worker benefit grows by inflation rather than the growth in average 

wages. Disability benefits are not affected by the proposal. Disabled worker beneficiaries, upon attaining 

normal retirement age, would be subject to a proportional reduction in benefits based on the worker's 

years of disability. In addition, the reduction to the upper 2 formula factors is suspended for any year in 

which sustainable solvency over the next 75 years is expected. With this provision taken alone, 

suspension is not expected within the next 75 years.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Present law With this provision