alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
18502.

#### Byrd *v.*Riggs.

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

1. Courts of law have jurisdiction to set aside their own. judgments upon petition with rule nisi or process attached and filed after the term at which the judgment was rendered upon the ground that such judgment was procured by fraud or other irregularity that renders it voidable. *Union Compress Co.*v. *A. Leffler & Sons,*122 *Ga.*640 (50 S. E. 483); *Davis*v. *Albritton,*127 *Ga.*517 (56 S. E. 514, 8 L. R. A. (NS) 820, 119 Am. St. R. 352); *Methodist Episcopal Church, South*v. *Decell,*187 *Ga.*526 (1 S. E. 2d 432).

2. The foregoing rule does not apply in cases where, as here, the petition to set aside the judgment is predicated upon alleged newly discovered evidence and in no wise charges fraud or illegality in the judgment sought to be set aside.

3. The judgment under attack is one probating a will in solemn form, and the petition is to the court of ordinary which rendered it with rule nisi attached, and it seeks to have that court set the judgment aside upon the alleged ground that a later will has been discovered since the rendition of the judgment. In this respect the proceeding is *474analogous to but is not an extraordinary motion for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence as provided for by law. Code §§ 70-205, 70-303. This is true because it is not so designated nor does the court of ordinary have jurisdiction to entertain a motion or extraordinary motion for new trial, as only superior and city courts may grant new trials. Code § 70-101.

Argued February 9, 1954

Decided March 9, 1954.

*W. G. Neville, Wm.. J. Neville, B. H. Ramsey, Sr., J. P. Dukes,*

*W. Roscof Deal,*for plaintiff in error. *Geo. M. Johnston, Fred T. Lanier, Robert S. Lanier,*contra.

4. For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the superior court, in the hearing of the appeal from the court of ordinary, sustaining the motion in the nature of a demurrer to dismiss the petition, upon the ground that the court of ordinary was without jurisdiction to entertain the same, must be affirmed. See *Cooney, Eckstein & Co.*v. *Sweat,*133 Ga. 511 (66 S. E. 257, 25 L. R. A. (NS) 758); *Veile*v. *Irwin,*133 Ga. 794 (66 S. E. 1087); *Darley*v. *Starr,*150 Ga. 88 (102 S. E. 819).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Mrs. Sarah LOPRESTIE, Wife of William Morris, v. ROY MOTORS, Inc., et al.

No. 1842.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 5, 1938.

Dubuisson & Dubuisson, of Opelousas, and M. C. Scharff, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Lewis & Lewis, of Opelousas, and Alvin R. Christovich, of New Orleans, for appel-lees.

*61LE BLANC, Judge.

This is a companion suit to that of William Morris v. Roy Motors, Inc., et al., 181 So. 57, in which an opinion and decree were this day handed down by the court.

In this suit, the plaintiff, Mrs. Sarah Loprestie, wife of William Morris, seeks to recover judgment in her own behalf against the same defendants for personal injuries sustained by her as a result of the same accident, in the sum of $2,500. The allegations made in her petition with regard to the happening of the accident are the same as those made in the other suit and the same exception was filed on behalf of the defendants and maintained by the district judge. As in the other suit, judgment was rendered rejecting the plaintiff’s demand at her costs, and she appealed.

For the same reasons as were stated in the opinion handed down in the suit of William Morris v. the same defendants, supra, it is now ordered that the judgment appealed from in this case be affirmed at the costs of the appellant.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

June 2, 2011

No. 10

- 3539

Dr. Karen Malleus, Appellant

v.

Dr. John J. George, et al.

(E.D. Pa. No. 10

- cv

- 01357)

Present: FISHER, JORDAN and COWEN, Circuit Judges

1. Motion by Appellees to amend the opinion

.

Respectfully,

Clerk/tyw

_________________________________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing motion is granted.

By the Court,

/s/ D. Michael Fisher

Circuit Judge

Dated: June 6, 2011

tyw/cc: Andrea C. Farney, Esq.

Sharon R. Lopez, Esq.

Paul J. Cianci, Esq.

Michael I. Levin, Esq.

Leonard G. Brown, III, Esq.
#### Willard A. Hull, Respondent, v. United Traction Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Kellogg, J., dissenting.
Exhibit 32

Certification of 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 Annual Report of Health Net, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Jay M. Gellert, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Joseph C.
Capezza, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their respective knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Jay M. Gellert     
|Jay M. Gellert         
|Chief Executive Officer

February 23, 2009



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Joseph C. Capezza  
|Joseph C. Capezza      
|Chief Financial Officer

February 23, 2009
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.8.8

                        ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                BETWEEN SUMMIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND DOUG BROUT

1.       The consulting Agreement entered into by the parties on April 15, 1996
         will terminate effective as of the date of this agreement. The
         following terms of the Consulting Agreement will survive its
         termination:

         a.       Employees' medical insurance costs pursuant the COBRA coverage
                  in place from prior employment will continue to be reimbursed
                  by the Company as agreed until Employee is eligible for the
                  Company's medical coverage.

         b.       A .10% (ten basis points) bonus will be paid at closing for
                  the properties listed on the attached schedule if purchased by
                  the Company. The bonus will be computed based on the total
                  purchase price including any stock/securities.

2.       A Severance payment for termination by the Company or its assigns,
         without cause, will be computed at one months salary per year of
         service pro rated for partial years. This provision does not apply
         during the first year of service however the initial year will be
         counted in any future Severance calculation.



"EMPLOYEE"

By: /s/ Doug E. Brout
    ___________________
    Doug E. Brout


SUMMIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY

By: /s/ John T. Gray
    __________________
    John T. Gray
    President
235 So.2d 906

#### Ex parte STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL. Henry Thompson ANDERSON, Jr. v. STATE.

4 Div. 387.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 9, 1970.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Lloyd G. Hart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Farmer & Farmer, Dothan, opposed.

SIMPSON, Justice.

Petition of the State by its Attorney General for certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Anderson v. State, 45 Ala.App. 653, 235 So.2d 902.

Writ denied.

All the Justices concur, except MADDOX, J.,. not sitting.
#### Sekouba FATY, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-1187.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 23, 2003.

Decided Aug. 18, 2003.

Randall L. Johnson, Johnson *&*Associates, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. Keener, Deputy Director, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Sekouba Faty, a native and citizen of Mali, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). The order denied his motion to reconsider the Board’s dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Faty’s motion to reconsider. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. *See In re: Faty,*No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 13, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

65 Cadillac Square JPMC 2006-CIBC14 

REO, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DTWR, LLC, et al. 

 Defendants. 

Case No: 2:09-cv-13299-RHC-VMM 

Hon. Robert H. Cleland 

MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND 

STONE, PLC 

Dennis G. Bonucchi (P26954) 

Eric C. Bartley (P69792) 

840 West Long Lake Road, Suite 200 

Troy, Michigan 48098 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

(248) 879-2000 

SCHAFER AND WEINER, PLLC 

Joseph K. Grekin (P52165) 

Michael E. Baum (P29446) 

40950 Woodward Ave., Suite 100 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

Attorneys for Defendants 

(248) 540-3340 

WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP 

Michael G. Cruse (P38837) 

2000 Town Center, ,Suite 2700 

Southfield, Michigan 48075-1318 

Attorney for Michael Kalil, 

 Independent Financial Monitor 

(248) 784-5131 

WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP 

Anissa C. Hudy (P57923) 

12900 Hall Road, Suite 440 

Sterling Heights, Michigan 48313 

Attorneys for Michael Kalil, 

 Independent Financial Monitor 

(248) 784-5199 

STIPULATED ORDER TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

At a session of said Court, held in the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District 

of Michigan, on the 19th day of December, 2011 

PRESENT: HONORABLE ROBERT H. CLELAND, U.S. District Judge 

This matter, having come before the Court upon the stipulation of the parties, and the 

Court being fully advised in the premises, 

2:09-cv-13299-RHC-VMM Doc # 67 Filed 12/19/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1517
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, in accordance with the foregoing stipulation, that the 

Defendants shall supply full and complete responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories 

Directed to Defendants on or before January 4, 2012; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, in accordance with the foregoing stipulation, that the 

Defendants shall produce or make available for inspection and copying all documents and 

information responsive to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to 

Defendants and Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants 

on or before January 4, 2012. 

s/Robert H. Cleland 

 Honorable Robert H. Cleland 

Dated: December 19, 2011 

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: 

s/ Eric C. Bartley 

Eric C. Bartley (P69792) 

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

s/ with consent of Tracey L. Porter 

Tracey L. Porter (P69984) 

Schafer and Weiner, PLLC 

Attorneys for Defendants 

19,617,049.2\145821-00002 12/13/11 4:39 PM 

2:09-cv-13299-RHC-VMM Doc # 67 Filed 12/19/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1518
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1593

DAVOUD ALLEN EGHBALI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, at the Savannah River National Lab,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. 

(1:12-cv-03460-JMC)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: November 25, 2015

Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Davoud Allen Eghbali, Appellant Pro Se. Terri Hearn Bailey, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Davoud Allen Eghbali appeals the district court’s orders

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his employment discrimination complaint and denying 

his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s orders. See Butler v. Drive Auto. Indus. of 

Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2015). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4282 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4282

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 30, 1996

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 to 
make a technical correction relating to the provision of Department of 
           Defense assistance to local educational agencies.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION RELATING TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
              ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

    Section 386(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1993 (Pub. L. 102-484; 20 U.S.C. 7703 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``section 8003(a)'' and inserting ``section 
        8003(a)(1)''; and
            (2) by striking ``(20 U.S.C. 7703(a))'' and inserting ``(20 
        U.S.C. 7703(a)(1))''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 21, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134572 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134572 COA: 275401 Livingston CC: 06-015972-FC 53 rd DC: 06-1172-FY DANIEL SANFORD TESEN, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 26, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

C ORRIGAN
, J., would grant leave to appeal.

p1114 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 21, 2007

Clerk
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 23.02

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

   The Board of Directors
   FirstSense Software, Inc.:

   We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-40456, 333-31484, 333-78087, 333-51945, 333-40645 and 333-38363) on Form S-8
and (No. 333-36170) on Form S-3 of Concord Communications, Inc. of our report
dated April 5, 2000, with respect to the balance sheet of FirstSense Software,
Inc. as of December 31, 1999, and the related statements of operations,
stockholders' (deficit) equity, and cash flows for the years ended December 31,
1999 and 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report on
Form 10-K of Concord Communications, Inc.

                                         /s/ KPMG LLP
                                             KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 21, 2001
Order entered October 24, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01115-CR

LAVACE DURELL MORGAN AKA LAVANCE DURELL JENKINS, 

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 21838

ORDER

On October 18, 2022, the Court received a pro se “Motion for Appointment 

of Counsel on Nunc Pro Tunc and Notice to Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc.” The notice of 

appeal states “The Court has entered a Judgment to the Nunc Pro Tunc and 

defendant seeks to appeal the decision.” 

A review of the trial court’s online docket sheet shows appellant filed a 

motion for nunc pro tunc relief on July 28, 2022. The online docket sheet does not 

show any ruling on the motion. 
–2–

This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal unless the trial court has 

entered a judgment or appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); State v. 

Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Henderson v. State, 

153 S.W.3d 735, 735–36 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.). To assist the Court in 

determining whether we have jurisdiction to proceed, we order the following relief. 

We ORDER the H u nt County District Clerk to review its records to 

determine if the trial court has entered a judgment or written order ruling on 

appellant’s pro se motion motion for nunc pro tunc relief. If the Hunt County 

District Clerk’s records show the trial court has not entered a judgment or written 

order ruling on appellant’s pro se motion seeking nunc pro tunc relief, then we

ORDER the Hunt County District Clerk to file, by November 14, 2022, a 

verification that the trial court has not entered a judgment or written order ruling 

on appellant’s pro se motion for nunc pro tunc relief.

If the Hunt County District Clerk’s records show the trial court has entered a 

judgment or written order ruling on appellant’s pro se motion for nunc pro tunc 

relief, then we ORDER the Hunt County District Clerk to file, by November 14, 

2022, a clerk’s record containing the motion for nunc pro tunc relief, any response 

to the motion by the State, any other documents related to the motion for nunc pro 

tunc relief, the trial court’s written judgment or order ruling on the motion for nunc 

pro tunc relief, any findings of fact the trial court has entered on the motion for 
–3–

nunc pro tunc relief, the trial court’s certification of the right to appeal, and any 

other documents filed with the clerk that the parties request.

Because the Court questions its jurisdiction over this appeal, we will defer

ruling on motions or other matters until we receive the verification or record from 

the district clerk and determine whether we have jurisdiction to proceed.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to transmit copies of this order to the 

Honorable Keli Aiken, Presiding Judge, 354th Judicial District Court; to Susan 

Spradling, Hunt County District Clerk; to Noble Walker, Hunt County District 

Attorney; and to Lavace Durell Morgan, TDCJ No. 01284341; Estelle Unit; 264 

FM 3478; Huntsville, Texas 77320-3320.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### Charles Joseph BATTAGLIA, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 72-2214.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 20, 1972.

Richard G. Sherman, of Sherman & Sturman, Beverly Hills, Cal., for petitioner-appellant.

William C. Smitherman, U. S. Atty., James D. Whitney, David S. Hoffman, Asst. U. S. Attys., Tucson, Ariz., for respondent-appellee.

Before HAMLEY, DUNIWAY and CHOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Battaglia, a federal prisoner, appeals a district court order denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.

In 1967 he was convicted of violating 19 U.S.C. § 1951 (The Hobbs Act). He alleges that during the trial he was under the influence of drugs and therefore was incompetent to assist in his own defense and to confront his accusers. He also alleges that failure by his two attorneys to raise this issue at trial, thus preserving it in the record on appeal, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

The incompetency claim was previously before this court on a § 2255 motion and adjudicated adversely to Battaglia. Battaglia v. United States, 428 F.2d 957 (9th Cir. 1970). The present § 2255 petition does not allege any new facts which would call for a hearing. Where a second § 2255 application is shown, on the basis of the application, files, and records clearly to be without merit, as here, the district court properly denied the application without a hearing. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963).

The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is frivolous. The record indicates that the two attorneys were able and experienced and were highly commended by the trial judge at the close of trial. The trial judge was aware of Battaglia’s physical condition, and was constantly observing him. If the issue of Battaglia’s incompetency had any merit, it would have been raised by counsel, or the court would have stopped the progress of the trial.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000915338
<NAME> CROWN NORTHCORP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         587,080
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,255,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,187,208
<PP&E>                                       3,100,631
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,092,989
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,934,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,744,684
<BONDS>                                      2,180,694
<COMMON>                                        88,269
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,000,000
<PREFERRED>                                         10
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,659,447
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,934,589
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,638,758
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,971,772
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (69,787)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             241,124
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,504,351)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,237,422)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,266,929)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,266,929)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.40)


</TABLE>