alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
182 La. 508

#### AYALA v. AYALA.

No. 32893.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 1935.

Harold J. Moore, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Henry G. Huckabee, of New Orleans, for appellee.

FOURNET, Justice.

Plaintiff, Alfred J. Ayala, filed suit against his wife, Minerva Kunkel Ayala, for a divorce, based upon the provisions of Act No. 31 of 1932, amending Act No. 269 of 1916, alleging that they had been living separate and apart continuously for a period of four years. The wife answered, denying the allegations of the petition, and averring, that her husband cohabited with her during that period and visited her constantly, citing thirteen dates as interruptions during the year 1932. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, whereupon defendant filed a motion for a new trial which was denied, and she has appealed.

The record shows that plaintiff and his wife became estranged in November, 1917. Defendant brought proceedings against her husband to have him pay alimony,' which he was ordered to pay, but from lack of employment and earning capacity he was unable to keep up the payments. On several occasions she had him brought before the courts to answer for his failures to pay the alimony, and at one time he was placed in jail. Plaintiff visited his wife in the daytime and at the home of his wife’s parents, where she lived, and on these visits there were other people in the same room with them.

Plaintiff contends that the sole purpose of his visits to the home of his mother-in-law was to plead with his wife to be lenient with him on account of his inability to pay the alimony.

Defendant, on. the other hand, testified that when her 'husband visited at her mother’s home on the alleged occasions, even though her parents might have been present, she and her husband retired to her bedroom on the second floor of the house, and there cohabited as man and wife, and that-she was led to believe that her husband would return to her, all of which plaintiff vigorously denied.

Counsel barely referred to his client’s testimony with reference to their cohabitation; but he urged and seriously argued that, within the meaning and contemplation of Act No. 31 of 1932, the living separate and apart is interrupted when the husband-visits his wife at her place of residence, regardless of the circumstances and conditions under which they meet. We do not agree with counsel’s theory. On the contrary, we believe that it is to the best interest of society and the parties concerned that estranged spouses be encouraged to continue their friendly relations and thereby increase the probability of a reconciliation.

We are of the opinion that the trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, *60was in a better 'position than we are to appreciate the weight to he given to their testimony, and from our examination of the evidence, we do not think he erred. The judgment of the lower court is, therefore, affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                      24,754,663
<SECURITIES>                                30,988,890
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,921,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            58,336,761
<PP&E>                                       3,549,443
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,724,643
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,226,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,555,370
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,330
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,294,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,226,219
<SALES>                                      5,325,505
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,992,256
<CGS>                                        2,918,976
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,515,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,283,451
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              69,556
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,876,263)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,500,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,376,263)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,376,263)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.42)


</TABLE>
1 Circuit Judge of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

 

**Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30592

NIA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

WHITNEY NATIONAL BANK AND JERRY TANNER,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(97-CV-1903-E)

December 10, 1999

Before DAVIS, JONES and MAGILL1, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:**

After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that

the district court correctly granted summary judgment and dismissed

plaintiff’s suit for the following reasons:

1. Nia’s § 1981 action is time barred;

2. The summary judgment record does not support Nia’s

allegations of discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity

Act (ECOA).

3. Whitney’s March 5, 1996 letter notifying Nia of the
2

denial of its application for a line of credit was timely and

adequate under the ECOA.

4. We have considered Nia’s remaining arguments and conclude

that they have no merit.

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE RAMON SORIANO, JR.,

RELATOR. §

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00072

- CR

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

against the Honorable Maria Salas

- Mendoza, Judge of the 120th District Court of El Paso

County, Texas, and concludes Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied . We

therefore deny the petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Riv era, and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Earnest BLACK, Defendant/Appellant. Earnest BLACK, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 66700, 68093.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 26, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 15,1996.

Application to Transfer Denied June 25,1996.

*813Deborah B. Wafer, District Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Breck K. Burgess, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent. .

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after his conviction by a jury of one count of first degree murder, § 565.020, RSMo Supp.1991, one count of assault in the first degree, § 565.050, RSMo 1986, and two counts of armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced by the court as a prior offender to life imprisonment without the possibility of probation or parole on the first degree murder charge, fifteen years on the first degree assault charge, thirty years on one armed criminal action charge, and fifteen years on the other. All counts were ordered to be served concurrently. He also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
QUARTERLY SEC REPORT FINANCIAL SUMMARY
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000914539
<NAME> ROTARY POWER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> $US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,066
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    681,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               758,541
<PP&E>                                         597,123
<DEPRECIATION>                                 106,791
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,894,501
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,718,595
<BONDS>                                      4,115,165
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                       2000
<COMMON>                                        61,129
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,894,501
<SALES>                                          2,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,500
<CGS>                                          130,646
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  142,093
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             165,927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (305,520)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (305,520)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BERNARD L. MADOFF and Case No. 09-CV-11399 

JONATHAN LEE RICHES, Hon. John Corbett O’Meara 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

BRITNEY SPEARS, et al., 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

 

 Plaintiff “Bernard L. Madoff, doing business as Jonathan Lee Riches” filed a complaint 

on April 15, 2009. Plaintiff has not presented proof of the court’s permission to file this 

complaint in violation of the February 5, 2008 order enjoining Plaintiff from filing any civil 

complaints in this court without proof of the court’s permission. Riches v. Aguilera et al., No. 

07-cv-14469 (E.D. Mich. February , 2008). 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED. 

Date: October 19, 2009 s/John Corbett O’Meara

 United States District Judge 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the above order was served upon the parties of record by 

U.S. mail on October 19, 2009. 

 s/William Barkholz

 Case Manager 

5:09-cv-11399-JCO-DAS Doc # 2 Filed 10/19/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 5
ex10_o-29.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10-O-29

    


    

     

     

    
      
        	
                Alan
      R. Mulally

              	
                World
      Headquarters

              
	
                President
      and Chief Executive Officer

              	
                One
      American Road

              
	 
      	
                Dearborn,
      MI 48126-2701 USA

              
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                [Date]

              


      

    

    


    
      	
              To:

            	
              [Name]

            


    

    


    
      	
              Subject:

            	
              Incentive
      Grant Opportunity

            


    

    


    The
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved a new incentive
opportunity to be delivered as a stock-based award within the framework of the
Long-Term Incentive program.  You have been selected to participate in
this program because of your role in leading efforts toward achieving the
Company's critical priorities.

    


    Stock-Based Award
Value

    


    The total
value of your award opportunity will be delivered in time-based Restricted Stock
Units (RSUs):

    


    Total
value:

    


    
      	
              Time-Based
      RSU value:

            	
              [     ]

            


    

    
      	
              Number
      of Time-Based RSUs*:

            	
              [     ]

            


    

    


    The RSUs
will vest after [one/two/three-] year/s from the date of grant/[x]% of the RSU
Grant will vest after one year from the date of grant; [x]% of the RSU Grant
will vest after two years from the date of grant; and [x]% of the RSU Grant will
vest after three years from the date of grant.  As soon as
feasible after the end of the restriction period, the RSUs will be converted to
shares of Ford Motor Company Common Stock, less shares withheld to cover
applicable taxes.   The resulting shares will be placed in an
account in your name.

    


    Your RSU
award is made under the 2008 Long-Term Incentive Plan and is subject to its
terms and conditions.  Additional information regarding all of your
stock-based awards is available on HR ONLINE.  If you have further
questions regarding your award, please contact [Name] at [Phone
Number].

    


    Your
continued leadership is greatly appreciated and is essential to the success of
achieving critical Company priorities.

    


    


    *The
number of time-based RSUs is based on the FMV of [    ] of
Ford Common Stock on [date of grant] truncated to the nearest whole
share.
*       *        *       *       *





EXHIBIT 32: Rule
13a-14(b) Certification





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of China Jianye Fuel, Inc.
(the “Company”) certifies that:




1.           The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2008
(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.







Date:  May
      20, 2008
            By:
      /s/ Jianye
      Wang


Jianye
      Wang, Chief Executive Officer


and Chief Financial
Officer
V

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4163

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade and on the Great Lakes and their tributary and connecting waters

in trade with Canada for the vessel MEDRX III.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 24, 1996

Mr. YOUNG of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade and on

the Great Lakes and their tributary and connecting waters in trade with Canada for the vessel MEDRX III.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of

5 June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and sections 12106

6 and 12107 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary

7 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation
2

•HR 4163 IH

1 with appropriate endorsement for employment in the

2 coastwise trade and on the Great Lakes and their tribu3 tary and connecting waters in trade with Canada for the

4 vessel MEDRX III (United States official number

5 682848).

Æ
DAVID A. MENDOZA, ATIORNEYAT LAW MENDOZA LAW OFFICES, PLLC 608 S. GUADALUPE STREET SAN MARCOS, TEXAS 78666

June 2, 2015 Ms. Lori Schmid CSR, Hays County Court at Law Hays County Government Center 712 S. Stagecoach Trail, Suite 2292 San Marcos, Texas 78666 RE: Cause No.: 3;a COA#: WRlT HABEAS CORPUS

- State ofTexas v. Jose ConcepcionLoredo 095790 (ABI-FV) 03-15-00301-CR DearMs. Schmid: We received notice that the Third Court ofAppeals received a copy ofthe reporter's record. By letter dated April 22, 2015, we requested that you forward the reporter's record to the Texas Court ofCriminal Appeals in accordance with articles 11.07(3)(c) and 11.09. Additionally, we paid your fee of$75 by check# 2414 to do the same. On May 12, 2015, you informed this office that you could not file the transcript until we filed a notice ofappeal with the Third Court ofAppeals. Consequently, we filed a notice ofappeal with the Third Court ofAppeals. Please send me a copy ofthe transcript. Ifyou have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 512-757-8830.

DavidA. Mendoza Attorney at Law SBN 24046426 Cc: Hays County District Attorney, via facsimile 512-393-7619 

# / Third Court ofAppeals, P.O. Box 12547, Austin, Texas 78711-2547

• PH: 512-757-8830 • MENDOZAONE@YAHOO.COM • WWW.DOZALAW.COM • FAX: 512-878-8426 • ACCEPTED 03-15-00301-CV 5612691 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/10/2015 9:01:29 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Maie A. Hope, Relator, v. Charlton Industrial Farm School, Appellant, Impleaded with Oliver Kipp and George Valentine, Defendants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.
BioRestorative Therapies, Inc.


555 Heritage Drive


Jupiter, Florida 33458


 


	 	March 6, 2014


 


Mr. Mark Weinreb


c/o BioRestorative Therapies, Inc.


555 Heritage Drive


Jupiter, Florida 33458


 


Dear Mr. Weinreb:


 


Reference is made to
that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of October 4, 2010, between BioRestorative Therapies,
Inc. (formerly known as Stem Cell Assurance, Inc.) (the “Company”) and Mark Weinreb (the “Employee”),
as amended (the “Employment Agreement”). All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the respective
meanings set forth in the Employment Agreement.


 


The parties hereby agree
that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Employment Agreement, (i) the Employee’s Base Salary for the calendar year ended
December 31, 2013 shall be $360,000 and (ii) the Employee shall not be entitled to receive any Bonus with respect to the calendar
year ended December 31, 2013.


 


Except as amended hereby,
the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	BioRestorative Therapies, Inc.
	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Mandy Clyde
	 	 	Vice President of Operations


 





	Agreed:	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Mark Weinreb
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report
of YaFarm Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hong Zhao, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Dated:  May
      20, 2009
            /s/  Hong
      ZhaoBy:  Hong
      ZhaoIts:  Chief
      Financial Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 21, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00475

- CR

Dominique GREEN, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR7880 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due on December 12 , 201 6. Appellant file a motion for extension of time requesting a 90

- day extension of time. Appellant’s motion is granted in part to

allow a 30

- day extension.

A ppellant must file the brief on or before January 1 2 , 201 7

. FURTHER REQUESTS

FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE D ISFAVORED

.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 21st day of D ecember, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TIMOTHY JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, Case no. 09-11881

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant,

____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court, pursuant to 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S. C.

636(b)(1)(B), and LR 72.1(b)(3), has reviewed Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s April 19,

2010 Report and Recommendation, as well as the objections and response to objections filed by

the parties, and upon review of the record;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the report and recommendation is ADOPTED as the

findings and conclusions of this Court.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: May 13, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date,

May 13, 2010, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager