alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       (188,448)
<SECURITIES>                                 3,500,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                      357
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             (119,058)
<PP&E>                                       9,156,357
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,749,029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,979,047
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     476,108
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,749,029
<SALES>                                         31,676
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,676
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,042,915        
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             275,905      
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (765,334)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.109)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.109)
        

</TABLE>
----

----

|   | (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 results of operations of      the Company. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May      6, 2010 | /s/      Richard      Ivanovick |
|------------------|---------------------------------|
|             | Richard      Ivanovick          |
|             | Chief      Financial Officer    |

----
#### Lucius G. Thompson v. Charles E. Vernay.

1. Bill in Chancery— *Will Not Lie When Replevin is a Sufficient*Remedy.—A bill in chancery will be dismissed where replevin is the proper form of action to redress the alleged wrong.

Bill In Chancery, to recover possession of personal property. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marshall County; the Hon. Leslie D. Puterbaugh, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1903.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 27, 1903.

Potter & Potter and Winslow Evans, attorneys for appellant.

Barnes *&*Magoon, attorneys for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant filed a bill in chancery in the Circuit Court of Marshall County to obtain possession of a colt from appellee. The court sustained a demurrer to the bill after i t was several times amended. The complainant electing to abide by his bill as amended, the court dismissed the same for want of equity upon its face, and the complainant appealed.

The bill alleges that appellant was the owner of the colt; that a demand for possession was made upon appellee prior to the filing of the bill; that appellee refused to surrender possession and that he wrongfully withholds possession of the colt from appellant.

*183The statute provides that replevin will lie to recover the possession of personal property when the same is wrongfully detained from the owner or person entitled to possession. We see no reason, under the allegations of the bill, why replevin is not the proper form of action to redress the alleged wrong. If, however, for any reason unforeseen by us, an action of replevin would not lie, it is manifest an action at law might be brought to recover the value of the colt, Ho sufficient reason is alleged in the bill or its amendments, why appellant may not be fully com- ' pensated in money for any damages he may sustain bv reason of the failure of appellee to deliver the colt to him.

As there is an adequate remedy at law, the demurrer was properly sustained. The decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill for want of equity upon its face will be affirmed.
No. 12,622.

#### State of Louisiana vs. Marius Aucoin.

On an indictment against three the grand jury’s action “ not found” as to two and “atruebill” as to the other may be endorsed on the bach of the bill, and neither that endorsement nor the title “The State vs, M. C. *et*a/s,” placed on the bach of the bill by the prosecuting officer when he preferred it, affords any cause of complaint to the accused.

APPEAL from the Eleventh Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Landry. Dupré, *J.*

*M. J. Cunningham,*Attorney General, and *Chas. W. Du Roy,*District Attorney, *ad hoc (P. A. Simmons,*Jr., of Counsel), for Plaintiff, Appellee.

*John N. Ogden*for Defendant, Appellant.

Submitted on briefs December 18, 1897.

Opinion handed down January 24, 1898.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Miller, J.

The accused appeals from the sentence of petty lar-

ceny.

The motion in arrest of judgment is on the ground that the indictment on which he was tried, preferred against him and two others, is endorsed, the action of the grand jury “ not found ” as to the two, *50and “a true bill” as to the accused, and this is claimed to be a variance between the indictment and the finding, and hence there is no valid indictment.

It is argued that the failure to find a true bill, or “ an *ignoramus*” can not be “ blended in the same instrument,” and is an irregularity fatal to the sentence. We believe it to be the common, if not the universal practice to exhibit the action o£ the grand jury by the endorsement of their foreman on the back of the bill. The endorsement has all the certainty of the finding or the failure to find stated in separate papers. In Blackstone the law is stated if on hearing the evidence the grand jury think the accusation groundless, they formerly endorsed ignoramus, but now they assert, as the commentator states, in better style “not found,” and “ not a true bill,” is equivalent to “ not found.” 4th Blackstone, S., p. 306. As it is the province of the grand jury to determine whether the evidence submitted to them is sufficient to put the parties indicted on trial, the action of the jury “ not found ” as to two, and a true bill as to the defendant was properly endorsed on the bill.

It is urged that the title put by the prosecuting officer on the indictment, “The State vs. Marius Aucoin *et als.,”*was an irregularity and misleading, and in this connection our attention is directed to the greater number of challenges to which the accused is entitled when tried jointly with others. We can perceive in this no cause for surprise to the accused, nor can we appreciate he could sustain any injury, unless injury is to be predicated on the theory it was his right to have the bill found as to all the parties indicted. When called on to plead that accused was fully apprised he alone was to stand his trial, and the law fixed the number of peremptory challenges. We think the motion in arrest was properly denied.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the sentence of the lower court be affirmed.
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 12

- 00067

- CR

BILLY JOE SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 0518104

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Billy Joe Smith was on deferred adjudication community supervision for the offense of

aggravat ed sexual assault of a child. The State filed a motion for adjudication and revocation,

alleging that Smith failed to pay fees, fines, and costs assessed as part of his supervision and that

he violated the terms and conditions of his supervision by being in the direct presence of or

having personal contact with children. The trial court found the allegations true

, adjudicated him

guilty, and sentenced him to life in prison.

Based on the reasoning and anal ysis in our opinion in cause number 06

- 1 2

- 0 00 6 5

- CR,

issued on even date herewith , we overrule Smith ’s points of error

.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment and sentence.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: January 10, 2013

Date Decided: January 23 , 2013

Do Not Publish
**Exhibit 23**

 

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-1394) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, as amended, of CatalystInternational, Inc., in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-97522C) pertaining to the 1997 Director Stock Option Plan of Catalyst International, Inc. and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-62896) pertaining to the CatalystInternational, Inc. 2001 Stock Option Plan and Catalyst International, Inc. U.K. Approved Company Share Option Scheme of our report dated February 18, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Catalyst International,Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
#### Herman J. KERN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. N. O. PUBLIC SERVICE, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 14084.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 7, 1932.

George Piazza, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Ivy G. Kittredge, of New; Orleans, for ap-pellee.

JANVIER, J.

At about 7:30 at night, Kern, plaintiff, had just boarded one of defendant’s street ears and was standing near the conductor on the rear platform, when the car was brought to a rather sudden stop because the wheels of the rear truck “split a switch” and refused to follow those of the front truck.

Kern claims that as a result of the jolt caused by the stop he was thrown violently against the upright bar near the center of the rear platform and that part of his body struck the emergency brake handle with the result that he was severely injured. The amount asked in his petition is $15,300.

Defendant maintains ■ that when the car split the switch it was not derailed; that it was traveling at a very slow speed; that Kern was not thrown against any part of the car, but was braced by the conductor; and that he not,only sustained no injuries at all, but made no complaint of any kind.

The district court rendered judgment for defendant dismissing the suit.

In argument before this court and in his brief, counsel for plaintiff contended that there should be judgment for his client, but he admitted that the record would not justify an award in excess of $735.

In view of the enormous claims presented in the petition, the voluntary reduction of the amount thereof to a sum comparatively so insignificant cannot be overlooked, and casts considerable doubt on the good faith of plaintiff and weakens the effect of his testimony in other particulars, because the issue presented depends solely upon the veracity of witnesses and through his entire testimony Kern’s willingness to exaggerate and to misstate facts is strikingly evident.

The record is large. We have given to it most careful consideration, and we deem it unnecessary to say more than, even if there had been no testimony other than that given by Kern himself, it would have been most difficult to believe that he sustained any injuries as the result of the slight jolt which occurred, and in view of absolute proof to the contrary we need do no more than state that plaintiff’s story is entirely disproved by the countervailing evidence.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

DAVID SHELBY,

Petitioner,

Case Number 09-12800-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

C. ZYCH, 

Respondent.

_____________________________________/

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

entered on this date,

It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DENIED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: August 21, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on August 21, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-12800-TLL-MAR Doc # 4 Filed 08/21/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 53
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Henry W. Scott, Appellant, v. Whitelaw Reid, Chancellor, and Others, as Regents of the University of the State of New York, Respondents.

Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion.
#### In the Matter of J.G.

No. 95-1012.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 22, 1995.

Gary L. White, Paris, for J.G.

J. Kerye Ashmore, Paris, for State.

On Application FOR Writ of ERror to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth DistRict of Texas

PER CURIAM.

J.G. seeks review by application for writ of error alleging the Juvenile Determinate Sentencing Statute is unconstitutional. *See*Tex.Fam.Code §§ 53.045, 54.04, 54.11; Tex.Hum. Res.Code § 61.079. J.G. did not bring any constitutional claims to the attention of the trial court. Before addressing the merits of the appeal, the court of appeals held that constitutional claims made by a juvenile are claims of fundamental error and may be raised for the first time on appeal. 905 S.W.2d 676, 680 n. 1. This Court neither approves nor disapproves of this language. The application for writ of error is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 6216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1837]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee <greek-i>13883; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee 
(<greek-i>13883) meeting:

    Date and Time: February 11-12, 2008, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, Room 1235, Stafford I 
Building, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. G. Wayne Van Citters, Director, Division of 
Astronomical Sciences, Suite 1045, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703-292-4908.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations to the 
National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
on issues within the field of astronomy and astrophysics that are of 
mutual interest and concern to the agencies.
    Agenda: To hear presentations of current programming by 
representatives from NSF, NASA, DOE and other agencies relevant to 
astronomy and astrophysics; to discuss current and potential areas 
of cooperation between the agencies; to formulate recommendations 
for continued and new areas of cooperation and mechanisms for 
achieving them.
    Reason for Late Notice: Scheduling conflicts and staff travel 
prevented the meeting notice to be posted earlier.

    Dated: January 29, 2008.
Susanne E. Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-1837 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### BRADBURY v. BRANCH.

No. 5224.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 3, 1936.

Arthur C. Watson, of Natchitoches, for appellant.

Rusca & Cunningham, of Natchitoches, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

Petitioner, alleging he is a collateral heir of Lizzie Bradbury, deceased, whom he alleged was his sister, instituted this suit against her' child, claiming, the estate left by his sister. He alleged defendant was an adulterous bastard and therefore could not inherit from her mother.

In answer defendant admits her mother died intestate and that she is the child of Lizzie Bradbury and Johnson Edwards, who was an unmarried man, and that during the period of his cohabitation with her mother and at the time of her birth there was no legal impediment to the freedom of her mother and father to contract a valid and legal marriage.

The following agreement was entered into on trial of the case below, which restricts the issues to the one question of fact only, which is shown by the agreement. It is as follows :,

“In order to restrict the testimony on the trial of the above cause to the vital issue involved and in order to facilitate the trial of said cause, it is agreed by and between the attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant, as follows:

“1. That Lizzie Bradbury owned at her death the property described in the petition; that she died intestate; and that her estate owed no debts.

“2. That the brothers and sisters named in the petition and their descendants are her collateral heirs and as such.are called to the inheritance unless excluded by an acknowledged natural child.

“3. That defendant is the daughter of Lizzie Bradbury, the issue of her cohabitation with one Johnson Edwards. Johnson Edwards was married in the fall of 1888 to one Laura Edwards.

“4. If the defendant, Rosa Edwards Branch, was born prior to 1888, the year her father married, then she is the acknowledged natural child of her mother, Lizzie Bradberry, and inherits the property to the exclusion of the collateral relations, since *137there was no legal impediment at that time to a valid marriage between the father and mother, had they seen fit to contract marriage.” •

After hearing the .testimony on this point, the lower court found for defendant, and plaintiff has appealed.

The only question presented, under the agreed statement of facts, is, Was the defendant conceived or born prior to the year 1888? All the witnesses in the case are old negroes who lived on the same or adjoining plantations where defendant’s mother and father Ijved. None of them knows his or her age. The preponderance of their testimony is that the defendant was born prior to 1888, and that before Johnson Edwards, her father, married Laura Edwards (in 1888), she was walking and playing around as a small child will do. It is unnecessary to recite from this testimony, and it would be of no benefit to any one.

The lower court heard and saw all the witnesses and was convinced that defendant was born prior to 1888. Only facts are involved, and there is certainly no manifest error in the judgment of the lower court.

It- is therefore affirmed, with costs.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-11288 Conference Calendar

JAMES MONTANYA, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CHARLES K. McGRANAHAN, Sergeant, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:98-CV-11

- - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James Montanya, Jr., a Texas prisoner (# 593707), has appealed the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint as frivolous. An in forma pauperis complaint may be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it has no arguable basis in law or in fact. Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997); see Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). This court reviews § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissals for abuse of discretion. Siglar , 112 F.3d at 193.No. 98-11288 -2- Montanya argues that the district court erred in dismissing his excessive-force claim as frivolous. “To prevail on an eighth amendment excessive force claim, a plaintiff must establish that force was not ‘applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, [but] maliciously and sadistically to cause harm,’ and that he suffered an injury.” Eason v. Holt , 73 F.3d 600, 601-02 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian , 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that injuries alleged by Montanya were

“ de minimis .” See Gomez v. Chandler , 163 F.3d 921, 924 (5th Cir. 1999); Siglar , 112 F.3d at 193. Montanya’s claim that Sergeant McGranahan violated prison regulations during the alleged incidents, besides being raised for the first time on appeal, is not cognizable under § 1983 without allegations that “constitutional minima” were also violated. See Myers v. Klevenhagen , 97 F.3d 91, 94 (5th Cir. 1996). Montanya has abandoned his other claims, such as that his personal belongings were ruined during a shake-down of his cell, by failing to brief them on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); F ED . R. A PP . P. 28(a)(6).
AFFIRMED.