alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Drummond’s Appeal. [Lang *v.*Drummond.]

The penalties for taking an appeal for delay, under the Act of May 25, 1874, will not be imposed in a case of an appeal from the refusal of the court below to open a judgment, although the defendant, prior to the appeal, entered a stay of execution — the appellant having filed an affidavit that the appeal was not taken for the purposes of delay.

March 3, 1888.

March 3, 1888.

Rule for penalties under the Act of May 25, 1874, in Appeal, No. 140, Jan. T., 1888, to C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., to review the action of the court in refusing to open a judgment by Louis Lang against Henry Drummond. Trunkey, Green and Williams, JJ., absent:

The affidavit for the rule by the appellee averred that the appeal was taken merely for purposes of delay.

The printed statement of counsel for the rule asserted that, after the judgment in this case was entered on a warrant, defendant gave security for one year’s stay from Sept. 4, 1886. At the time this stay was about to expire, the appellant, after paying over $200 on account of the debt, retained other counsel and took this rule to open the judgment.

The affidavit of the appellant denied that the appeal was taken for purposes of delay, but asserted that the rule to open the judgment was argued in the court below Nov. 27, 1887, and discharged the same day; that this appeal was perfected forthwith and made returnable to the first Moneay of January, 1888, that, by great exertion, appellant’s paper-book was completed and the case argued Jan. 27, 1888, as soon as reached. [Reported in n Cent. 626; 12 Atl. 658.] The case was next to the last on the list, and the delay of a single day, perhaps, on the part of appellant in perfecting his appeal, would have postponed this appeal until March, 1888.

*Edward F. Hoffman,*for rule.

The effort to open this judgment, under all the facts, as above stated, presumes an attempt to cause delay.

, *Dwight M. Lowrey*and *A. U. Bannard,*contra.

The appellant brought the case to a hearing in this court with the utmost dispatch.

Security for stay of execution does not operate as an implied agreement not to attack the judgment: Ranck *v.*Becker, 12 S. & R. 412-16.

The entry of the stay and the payments on account, like the confession of the judgment itself, constitute no estoppel and present no obstacle to the opening of the judgment: Earnest *v.*Hoskins, 100 Pa. 558-9.

Per Curiam,

Rule discharged.

See, also, the preceding case.
#### Robert F. Jennings v. State

No. 25542.

December 12, 1951.

*507Hon. Frank Williford, Jr., Judge Presiding.

*Lee Ducoff,*Houston, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Assault with intent to murder with malice is the offense; the punishment, seven years in the penitentiary.

That appellant at close range fired three shots at the injured party with a .38 caliber pistol, one of which shots took effect and struck her in the back, is shown by the state’s witnesses.

Appellant, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, admitted firing the shots but claimed that he shot in self-defense.

Appellant, in his brief, urges that the facts do not warrant the jury’s conclusion of guilt. With this contention we do not agree. The assault was inflicted with a deadly weapon, per se, resulting in serious bodily injury. It would be a strange doctrine, indeed, to say that one shooting at another at close range with a .38 caliber pistol did not, as a matter of law, intend to kill. This we are unwilling to hold. The facts abundantly support the jury’s conclusion of guilt. Honey v. State, 132 Tex. Cr. R. 98, 102 S. W. 2d 224; Rios v. State, 147 Tex. Cr. R. 326, 180 S. W. 2d 439.

Several bills of exception appear in the transcript; notwithstanding appellant did not discuss these in his brief, we have examined them and fail to find that reversible error is reflected therein. These bills are overruled without discussion.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
Order entered December 17 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00143
- CR TORRY GOODSON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13
- 62599
- K



### O RDER On December 2, 2015, this Court ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing both sides of all jury notes within seven days. To date, we have not received the supplemental record, nor have we had any correspondence from the clerk regarding the status of the record. Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to make findings regarding the following.

 How many notes were sent by the jury to the trial court during deliberations.

 The manner in which the trial court responded to the jury’s questions.

 If the trial court responded in writing to each jury note, whether the record can be supplemented with the trial court’s written response.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record containing its written findings, any

supporting documentation, and any orders to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of
this order.
We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal will be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Spherion Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 26, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark W. Smith, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/MARK W. SMITHMark W. Smith
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
March 10, 2004 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

77

---

QuickLinks
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of

- )

)

Chugach Federal Solutions, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 63192, 63193

)

Under Contract No. FA5000

- 13

- C

- 0005 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Douglas L. Patin, Esq.

Lisa A. Markman, Esq.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.

Deputy Chief Trial Attorney

Josephine R. Farinelli, Esq.

Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal s are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: June 27, 2022

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 63192, 63193

, Appeals of Chugach

Federal Solutions, Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: June 28, 2022 JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
#### Joseph Jameson, as Administrator, etc., of Sarah E. Jameson, Deceased, Respondent, v. Central Union Gas Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce verdict to §7,500, in which event judgment as so modified and order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Settle order on notice.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual  Report of Bancorp Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on Form  10-K for the  period  ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof  (the "Report"),  I, Dempsey K. Mork,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.



/s/ Dempsey K. Mork

By: Dempsey K. Mork

Chief Executive Officer

January 4, 2010
178 *La.*188

#### STATE v. UP-TO-DATE SHOE REPAIRING CO., Inc.

No. 32410.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 30, 1933.

J. C. McGee, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Charles J. Rivet, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

OVERTON, Justice.

This case was before us a year ago. The judgment appealed from was set aside, and the case was remanded to enable plaintiff to introduce evidence to establish the basis of its demand. 175 La. 917, 144 So. 714. When the case reached the trial court again, plaintiff ruled defendant to show cause therein on á given date why judgment should not be rendered against it. Defendant then appeared and' pleaded the uneonstitutionality, on federal grounds, of the tax sought to pe collected from it. Defendant moved to strike from the record the plea of unconstitutionality on the ground that the sole purpose of remanding the case was to enable plaintiff to introduce the requisite evidence to establish its claim. The court sustained the motion to strike the plea from the record. After an admission that the amount sued for is correct, the court rendered judgment for plaintiff. Defendant has appealed, and plaintiff now moves to dismiss' the appeal on the grounds that the only purpose of the remand was to ascertain the amount of the tax.-due by defendant, and that defendant has admitted that the amount sued for is correct, and that this admission constitutes an acquiescence in the judgment appealed from.

This admission is purely as to the amount of the tax due, and is not an acquiescence in the constitutionality of the tax, nor in the absence of the right to file the plea of uneonstitutionality. The right to file the plea of uneonstitutionality, notwithstanding the admission, remains to be decided. That right, although it may prove to be frivolous, constitutes an issue that may be presented on appeal. The only way in which the merits of the issue may be determined is by an examination of the record, and this may be done only by considering the appeal on its merits to determine whether the ruling complained of is correct or not. No matter how frivolous one’s appeal may seem to be, nevertheless it should not be dismissed for that reason, but should be considered on its merits, and the judgment affirmed, amended, or set aside. Succession of Damico, 161 La. 725, 109 So. 402; Typhoon Fan Co. v. Pilsbury, 166 La. 883, 118 So. 70.

The motion to dismiss is denied.
229 So.2d 919

#### Carl ROBINSON et al., v. R. L. ROBINSON et al.

7 Div. 826.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 11, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 22,1970.

*169Embry & Robinson, Pell City, Fred Blanton, Birmingham, for appellants.

Gerald C. Swann, Ashville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Bill in equity, filed in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Ashville Division, to vacate and set aside a deed from Edward C. Robinson and his wife, Sarah Elizabeth Robinson, to their son, R. L. Robinson, and his wife Lillian Robinson. The bill alleges the respondents procured the execution and delivery of the deed, conveying forty acres-of land, through undue influence and threats. The trial court denied relief and taxed appellants with the court costs. This appeal follows therefrom.

The evidence, taken orally before the court, is narrated in appellants’ brief. The argued assignments of error contend, in different phraseology, that the trial court erred in denying relief.

We not only have considered and carefully read the narrated evidence, but we have also read the transcript of the testimony. We find therefrom that there were many conflicts which were addressed for resolution to the trial court. The court resolved them in favor of appellees.

We adhere to the cardinal rule of this Court, which here applies, that the finding of a judge or chancellor on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed unless clearly and palpably wrong. Barton v. Lumpkin, 277 Ala. 394, 171 So.2d 101; 2A Ala.Digest, Appeal and Error, <3^1009(3). We cannot say that the court was clearly and palpably wrong.

The decree of the trial court is affirmed.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by B. W. Simmons, Supernumerary Circuit Judge, and was adopted by the Court as its opinion.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON, MERRILL, HARWOOD and MADDOX, JJ-, concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4223 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4223

 To designate the United States Post Office located at 125 West South 
  Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ``Andrew Jacobs, Jr., United 
                         States Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 1996

Mr. Traficant (for himself and Mr. Visclosky) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and 
                               Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the United States Post Office located at 125 West South 
  Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ``Andrew Jacobs, Jr., United 
                         States Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Post Office located at 125 West South Street, 
Indianapolis, Indiana, shall be known and designated as the ``Andrew 
Jacobs, Jr., United States Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the post office referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Andrew Jacobs, Jr., United 
States Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Irving W. Childs, Appellant, v. Gertrude E. Childs, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.

Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 159 (Friday, August 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47916-47922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18651]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-37]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 08-37 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: August 5, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 47917]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.020


[[Page 47918]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.021


[[Page 47919]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.022


[[Page 47920]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.024


[[Page 47921]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.025


[[Page 47922]]


[FR Doc. E8-18651 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
               SUBSIDIARIES OF SAMSONITE CORPORATION (Delaware)



Samsonite Europe N.V.                             Belgium
     Samsonite S.A.                               France
     Samsonite Limited                            United Kingdom
     Samsonite B.V.                               Netherlands
     Samsonite Ges.m.b.H.                         Austria
     Samsonite GmbH                               Germany
     Samsonite Hungaria Borond KFT                Hungary
     Samsonite Finanziaria S.r.l.                 Italy
          Samsonite SpA                           Italy
     Samsonite Espana S.A.                        Spain
     Samsonite AB (Aktiebolag)                    Sweden            
     Samsonite A/S                                Denmark          
     Samsonite AG                                 Switzerland      
     Samsonite Slovakia S.r.o.                    Slovakia         
     Samsonite Sp. z o.o.                         Poland           
     Samsonite Finland Oy                         Finland          
     Samsonite CZ spol. s.r.o.                    Czech Republic   
     Samsonite Mauritius Limited                  Mauritius        
          Samsonite India Limited                 India            
     Samsonite Singapore Pte Ltd                  Singapore        
     Samsonite Asia Limited                       Hong Kong        
          Samsonite Hong Kong Limited             Hong Kong        
     Samsonite Korea Limited                      Korea             
                                                  
Samsonite Latinoamerica, S.A. de C.V.             Mexico
     Samsonite Mexico, S.A. de C.V.               Mexico
Samsonite Comercio E Participacoes Ltda.          Brazil 
     Samsonite Industrial E Comercial Ltda.       Brazil
Samsonite Canada Inc.                             Canada    
Samson S.A. de C.V.                               Mexico    
Samsonite Mercosur Limited                        Bahamas   
     Samsonite Brasil Ltda.                       Brazil    
     Samsonite Argentina, S.A.                    Argentina 
     Lonberg Express, S.A.                        Uruguay    

Samsonite Company Stores, Inc.                    Indiana
Samsonite Pacific Ltd.                            Colorado
Direct Marketing Ventures, Inc.                   Colorado
Samsonite Holdings Inc.                           Delaware

Astrum R.E. Corp.                                 Delaware

McGregor II, LLC                                  Delaware
    Hortex Incorporated                           Texas   
    McGregor China Corp.                          Delaware
Jody Apparel II, LLC                              Delaware
WMI II, LLC                                       Delaware
**Exhibit      21 **

**Subsidiaries      of the Registrant **

----

| Parent                               | Subsidiary                                     | Percentage                of Ownership | State                of Incorporation or Organization |
|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |                                           |                                   |                                                  |
| AMB                Financial Corp.   | American                Savings, FSB           | 100%                                   | Federal                                               |
|                                 |                                           |                                   |                                                  |
| American                Savings, FSB | NIFCO,                Inc.                     | 100%                                   | Indiana                                               |
|                                 |                                           |                                   |                                                  |
| NIFCO,                Inc.           | Ridge                Management, Inc.          | 100%                                   | Indiana                                               |
|                                 |                                           |                                   |                                                  |
| AMB                Financial Corp.   | AMB                Financial Statutory Trust I | 100%                                   | Connecticut                                           |

----
#### Albert MYERS and Louis M. Myers, Surviving Trustees of Trust Estate Known as Myers Brothers Building Trust, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 6427.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Jan. 12, 1938.

*1012Clayton J. Barber and Alton G. Hall, both of Springfield, III, for petitioners.

James W. Morris, Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before EVANS, MAJOR, and TREANOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties filed herein on the 12th day of January, 1938, it is this 12th day of January, 1938, ordered that the petition to review the Board’s decision and order entered August 13, 1937, be, and it is hereby, dismissed, the rights of the parties to be governed by said stipulation.
#### LEAMAN v. FEINMAN.

No. 14142.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 13, 1933.

Hopkins & Talbot, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Hugh M. Wilkinson, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit for damages for an assault and battery. Plaintiff was awarded a judgment for $2,522, and defendant has appealed.

It is contended that plaintiff was the aggressor, and therefore not entitled to any award in damages, and, in the alternative, that the sum allowed is grossly excessive. Complaint is made of a ruling of the trial judge excluding evidence of provocation. Plaintiff, while on the stand, was asked: “Were you on Carondelet Street about a year ago driving behind an automobile, which your former wife was driving and you used Offensive terms toward her (defendant’s sister)”? Both counsel concede that the word “year” as appears in the transcript of the testimony is a typographical error and should be “hour”; but plaintiff’s counsel insists that an hour is too long to serve as justification or mitigation of the assault. With this contention we do not agree, and are of opinion that the circumstances of this case indicate that the resentment of the alleged insult to defendant’s sister occurred with all essential promptness, since it elsewhere appears in the transcript that defendant was told of the insult while dressing himself at his home, some distance from the scene of the assault, and that he left for plaintiff’s office, the-scene of the combat, as soon as he finished dressing. The testimony should have been admitted in mitigation of the damage. Capdevielle v. Christina, 3 La. App. 455; Caspar v. Prosdame, 46 La. Ann. 36, 14 So. 317; Bernard v. Kelley, 118 La. 132, 42. So. 723; Munday v. Landry et al., 51 La. Ann. 303, 25 So. 66.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and it is now ordered that this cause be remanded to the civil district court, with instructions to permit the administration of the excluded testimony, and for further proceedings in accordance with law and consistent with the views herein expressed.

Reversed and remanded.