alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harvey S. Skaggs v. State.

No. 25677.

February 27, 1952.

Rehearing Denied April 16, 1952.

Hon. Dean Gauldin, Judge Presiding.

*Milton K. Norton*and *John B. Hainen,*Dallas, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the sale of wine without a permit in a wet area, as denounced by Article 666-4a; the punishment, a fine of $100.00. A stipulated statement of facts shows a sale of wine in a wet area without a permit. Appellant did not testify, nor did he offer any witnesses in his behalf.

The sole question presented for review is the jurisdiction of the County Criminal Court of Dallas County to try such an offense. It is appellant’s contention that, since Article 666-4(3) provides for punishment by fine not exceeding $50.00, the jurisdiction for the offense charged herein should have been in the Justice Court.

In Shafer v. State, 151 Tex. Cr. R. 558, 209 S. W. (2d) 599, we had an occasion to discuss this same contention and, at that time, carefully analyzed the question and feel that it is controlling herein.

It will further be noted that Article 52-159a, Section 2, C. C. P., which created County Criminal Court No. 2 of Dallas *196County, vested in said court the same criminal jurisdiction as is vested in county courts under the Constitution and laws of this state. Construing Article 56, C. C. P., this court has repeatedly held that county courts have concurrent jurisdiction with justice courts of misdemeanors cognizable in justice courts.

Such a finding disposes of appellant’s one bill of exception.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant urges that the punishment for the offense charged is by fine not exceeding $50 as provided in Sec. 3 of Art. 666-4(c), Vernon’s Ann. P. C.

In Shafer v. State, 151 Tex. Cr. R. 558, 209 S.W. (2) 599, we held that such fine was applicable only to violations of Sec. 4(c) of said Art. 666, Vernon’s Ann. P.C.

This prosecution was under Sec. 4(a) of Art. I, Ch. 467, Acts of the 44th Leg., 2nd C.S., as last amended by S.B. 117, Acts of the 48th Leg., Ch. 325, Sec. 2, p. 509. (Art. 666-4(a), Vernon’s Ann. P. C.).

The punishment provided for the offense charged is fixed in Sec. 8 of the amended act, (Art. 666-41, Vernon’s Ann. P.C.), at a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1000 or by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by both such fine and imprisonment.

A close examination of Art. 666-4, Vernon’s Ann. P.C., will reveal that subsection (a) of said article was passed in the Legislature as a separate act from subsection (c) of said article. The act containing subsection (a) is found in Ch. 325, Acts of the 48th Leg., whereas subsection (c) is found as a part of Ch. 221, Acts of the 48th Leg. These two acts were compiled by Vernon under the same article.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the court.
#### Gregory David WOOD; Michael Forrest Wood; Victoria Ruth Wood, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; Federal Insurance Co; Citicorp Credit Services Inc, Successor in interest to Universal Card Service Corp., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-30900.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 8, 2003.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

This suit is a dispute over entitlement to travel life insurance proceeds brought by the children of the decedent, Electa Wood. Mrs. Wood traveled to Florida by air and charged her plane ticket to her Citicorp MasterCard. She died as a result of an auto accident which occurred while she was being driven by a friend in his car from her hotel to the airport to board her return flight. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court held that there were no issues of material fact that:

1) The Hartford policy did not provide coverage because Wood was riding in a private passenger vehicle, not in a “Common Carrier or hotel or airport shuttle” as required by the Hartford policy.

2) The Federal policy had terminated according to its own terms before the accident.

3) Citicorp provided the coverage it promised to provide to its cardholders.

We have examined the record and carefully considered the briefs and oral argument of all counsel and find no error in the district court’s resolution of the case. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the Defendants is

AFFIRMED.

1

. 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.
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 this Quarterly Report of Beyond Commerce, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2020, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Geordan Pursglove, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

 

(1)Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2020, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2020, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

November 16, 2020
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

               CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                          SIGMATRON INTERNATIONAL, INC.
              PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT AND
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

          I, Linda K. Blake, am Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
of SigmaTron International, Inc. (the "Company").

          This certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, in connection with the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended April 30, 2006 (the "Report").

          I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

Date: July 27, 2006

                                      /s/ Linda K. Blake
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Linda K. Blake
                                      Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
                                      Treasurer of SigmaTron International, Inc.
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 91-4 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 1 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 91-4 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 2 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 91-4 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 3 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 91-4 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 4 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 91-4 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 5 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 91-4 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 6 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 91-4 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 7 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 91-4 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 8 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 91-4 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 9 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 91-4 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 10 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 91-4 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 11 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 91-4 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 12 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 91-4 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 13 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 91-4 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 14 of 14
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LEWISTON ORCHARDS IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Respondent.

No. 71-2615.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Dec. 14, 1972.

Leonard M. Wagman, Atty. (argued), Kenneth Pearlman, Atty., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., Charles M. Henderson, Director, Region 19, NLRB, Seattle, Wash., Abraham Sie-gel, Director, Region 31, NLRB, Los An-geles, Cal., for petitioner.

Eugene R. Nielson (argued), Seattle, Wash., Thomas W. Feeny, of Blake, Feeny & Mosman, Lewiston, Idaho, George Davies, Seattle, Wash., for respondent.

Before CHAMBERS, DUNIWAY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Enforcement of the order of the Board against the Lewiston District is denied for jurisdictional reasons.

Our reading of NLRB v. Natural Gas Utility District of Hawkins County, 402 U.S. 600, 91 S.Ct. 1746, 29 L.Ed.2d 206 (1971), and our examination of the facts brings us to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to the political subdivision exemption under Section 2(2), 29 U.S.C. § 152(2) of the act.
#### George W. Erland, Appellant, v. House and Home Company, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Hirschberg, P. J., Jenks, Eich and Miller, JJ., concurred ; Woodward, J., dissented.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC

RELATIONS, MICHIGAN, a/k/a CAIR-MI, a

Michigan nonprofit corporation, and RANEEN

ALBAGHDADY, an Individual

Plaintiffs,

v.

JUDGE WILLIAM CALLAHAN, in his official

capacity as 3rd Circuit Court Judge for the

County of Wayne Family Division, and WAYNE

COUNTY, a unit of Local Government for the

State of Michigan,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 09-13372

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN LIEU OF RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT WAYNE

COUNTY’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR

THIRTY-DAY EXTENSION TO FILE RESPONSE AND GRANTING DEFENDANT

WAYNE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIE TO FILE RESPONSE

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File A First Amended

Complaint in Lieu of Response to Defendant Wayne County’s Motion to Dismiss and in

the Alternative Motion for Thirty-Day Extension to File Response (Doc. No. 12) and

Defendant Wayne County’s request for additional time to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion

(Doc. No. 16). The Court heard oral argument on January 6, 2010, and for the reasons

stated on the record, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court further finds that

Wayne County has established good cause for its failure to respond during the time frame

established by the Court and therefore GRANTS Wayne County’s motion.

2:09-cv-13372-MOB-VMM Doc # 19 Filed 01/07/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 162
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs must file their response to

Wayne County’s motion to dismiss on or before January 20, 2010; and Defendant may

file its reply on or before January 27, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: January 7, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were mailed and/or electronically filed to counsel of record on this

date.

s/Bernadette M. Thebolt

Case Manager

2:09-cv-13372-MOB-VMM Doc # 19 Filed 01/07/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 163
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FORM THE ANCHOR
GAMING CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND 1998 AND THE ANCHOR
GAMING CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, 1998
AND 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000914923
<NAME> ANCHOR GAMING
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          32,835
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,526
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     21,375
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               101,664
<PP&E>                                         188,048
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 507,169
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,756
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                     220,215
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   507,169
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               248,931
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   88,349
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                76,767
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 113
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 86,929
<INCOME-TAX>                                    39,422
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             47,507
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    47,507
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.82


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,548,418
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,309,309
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,500
<INVENTORY>                                  2,138,180
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,614,374
<PP&E>                                      26,311,749
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,472,430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,220,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,757,756
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,000,000
<COMMON>                                        56,957
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,550,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,220,280
<SALES>                                     42,678,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,678,313
<CGS>                                        9,979,363
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,402,465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,480,679
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,122,038)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (540,595)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,581,443)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (258,625)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,840,068)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.70)
        

</TABLE>
#### QUEEN INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BLOOMENSTIEL et al.

No. 1517.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 31, 1935.

See, also, 160 So. 169.

St. Clair Adams, St. Clair Adams Jr., and P. A. Bienvenu, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Charles T. Wortham, of Donaldsonville, and Simmons, Simmons & Dolese, of Napoleonville, for appellees.

ELLIOTT, Judge.

Queen Insurance Company of America brought suit against M. F. Bloomenstiel and Charest Thibaut alleging that they are sureties on a bond signed by them, for United Agencies, Inc., and as such are indebted unto plaintiff in the sum of $114.06 with legal interest from judicial; demand. Defendants urge against its suit the exception of no right or cause of action, which was maintained and the. suit dismissed.

Plaintiff has appealed. The bond under which liability is alleged is annexed to and. made part of the petition. It was signed by Bloomenstiel and Thibaut and it is, written on its face that United Agencies,, *23Inc., is the principal and that Bloomenstiel and Thibaut are its sureties, but it was not signed by United Agencies, Inc. The fact that it was not signed by United Agencies, Inc., stated therein to be the principal, is-the ground on which the exception of no cause or right of action rests. The plaintiff contends that under the provisions of our Civil Code on the subject of Suretyship and Obligations In Solido, it is sufficient to hold the sureties that the bond obligates them in solido, and that they have signed the bond. Plaintiff’s contention on the subject has received our consideration. The lower court reasoned that as United Agencies, Inc., was not a party to the bond, it could not be sued on it, and that as United Agencies, Inc., could not be sued on the bond, the defendant could not. Citing Selby v. New Orleans, 119 La. 900, 44 So. 722.

The reasoning of the court in Selby v. New Orleans supports the contentions of the defendants. The lower court filed reasons for holding' that the defendants were not liable on the face of the bond. The reasoning of the lower court on the subject seems to us to be proper and correct.

The judgment appealed from in our opinion is correct.

Judgment affirmed. Plaintiff and appellant to pay the cost in both courts.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 
30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                    
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS          
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             
<CASH>                                           1,819             
<SECURITIES>                                         0             
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,159             
<ALLOWANCES>                                       800             
<INVENTORY>                                     20,646             
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,705             
<PP&E>                                          13,174             
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,035                          
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,282                 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,307                 
<BONDS>                                              0                 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                 
<PREFERRED>                                     17,544                 
<COMMON>                                            10                 
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,550                 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,282                 
<SALES>                                         64,639                 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,639                 
<CGS>                                           39,127                 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,127                 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,172                 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   270                 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,925                 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,446                 
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,748                 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,698             
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       
<CHANGES>                                            0                   
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,698                         
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32        
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18444]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 604

[Docket No. FTA-2005-22657]
RIN 2132-AA85


Charter Service

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration published a document in the 
Federal Register on August 1, 2008, revising the appendices to the 
final rule and responding to petitions for reconsideration. That 
document inadvertently failed to update the table in Appendix D, which 
should have appeared in the rule as a matrix.

DATES: Effective Date: August 11, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Frederick, Ombudsman for 
Charter Services, Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 
SE., Room E54-410, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4063 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e7888a859283948a8689c9848f8695938295948295918e8482a7838893c9808891"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b3436392e3f28363a357538333a292f3e29283e292d32383e1b3f342f753c342d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a second correction to the final 
rule published on January 14, 2008 (73 FR 2326). The first correction 
was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 2008 (73 FR 44927).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 604

    Charter Service.

0
Accordingly, 49 CFR part 604 is corrected by making the following 
correcting amendment:
0
1. The authority citation for part 604 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5323(d); Sec.  3023(d), Public Law 109-59; 
49 CFR 1.51.

0
2. Revise the table in appendix D to part 604 to read as follows:

Appendix D to Part 604--Table of Potential Remedies

    Remedy Assessment Matrix:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AU08.015
    
* * * * *

    Issued this 5th day of August 2008.
Severn E.S. Miller,
Chief Counsel.
 [FR Doc. E8-18444 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-C


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>