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
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND IN
COMPANY'S 10-K FOR THE YEAR AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          21,086
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,776
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,849
<INVENTORY>                                        629
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,349
<PP&E>                                         426,718
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,163
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 681,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,917
<BONDS>                                        347,941
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     230,984
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   681,027
<SALES>                                         84,939
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,138
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,350
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,398
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,730
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,660
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,660
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (14,448)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,788)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Federal Land Bank of Omaha, appellee, v. William T. Miller, appellant: Loretta Miller et al., appellees.

296 N. W. 748

Filed March 7, 1941.

No. 31014.

*Butler, James & McCarl,*for appellant.

*162
      *Frank B. Morrison, Franklin L. Pierce*and *Philip M. Wellman, contra.*

Heard before Simmons, C. J., Paine, Messmore and Yeager, JJ., and Chappell, District Judge.

Messmore, J.

This is an appeal from a confirmation of sale. The record discloses that the sale was conducted in conformity to law. The plaintiff was the highest bidder at the sale held February 5, 1940, and purchased the real estate for the amount of $6,778.10. Defendants filed objections to confirmation of the sale, oral evidence was taken on the objections, and the sale was confirmed February 28, 1940. From this confirmation, defendant William T. Miller appeals.

The testimony discloses that 440 acres of land in Frontier county, 180 acres tillable, the rest pasture land, were valued by plaintiff’s witness, who was competent to testify, in the amount of $4,900. In arriving at the value, he considered 180 acres tillable and included the buildings, consisting of a good frame house, a fairly large barn and other sheds, and a windmill, which he valued at $20 an acre, and the grass land at $5 an acre. On cross-examination he testified that the land would not bring more than $10 an acre the way land was selling at that time. Witnesses for defendant Miller, including himself, placed the value of this land at $25 an acre, or a total amount of $11,000.

The contention is made that the trial court erred in confirming the sale, in that the land was sold for a much lower price than the evidence clearly showed was its true valuation, citing in support of such contention *Filley v. Mancuso,*133 Neb. 538, 276 N. W. 157, *Redfield v. Collopy,*133 Neb. 546, 276 N. W. 158, and *Federal Farm Mtg. Corporation v. Popham,*137 Neb. 529, 290 N. W. 423, wherein this court set aside mortgage foreclosure sales where sale prices were disproportionately low and inadequate. In each of the cases cited, the evidence showed that the land did sell for a price less than its value; there was no positive evidence to the contrary. In the instant case, the evidence is in conflict as *163to the value of the land. The trial court found that the price bid for the land was a fair and adequate price under the circumstances.

“ ‘An order confirming a judicial sale under a decree foreclosing a mortgage on real estate will not be reversed on appeal for inadequacy of price, when there was no fraud or shocking discrepancy between the value and sale price, and where there is no satisfactory evidence that a higher bid could be obtained in the event of another sale.’ *Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Buck,*138 Neb. 203, 292 N. W. 605.” *Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Curry,*138 Neb. 741, 295 N. W. 282.

For the reasons given herein, the judgment of the trial court confirming the sale is

Affirmed.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 18, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-00922-CV
DIXIE CARPET INSTALLATIONS, INC., Appellant V. RESIDENCES AT RIVERDALE, L.P. AND RESIDENCES AT RIVERDALE GP, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-04903-2012



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, J ustice Evans, and Justice Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant no longer wishes
to pursue the appeal. Accordin gly, we grant the motion and dis miss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

180922F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

DIXIE CARPET INSTALLATIONS, INC., Appellant

No. 05-18-00922-CV V.

RESIDENCES AT RIVERDALE, L.P. AND RESIDENCES AT RIVERDALE GP, LLC, Appellees On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-04903-2012. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Evans and Brown participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that the parties bear the ir own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered October 18, 2018.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.9

                      SUBSIDIARIES OF CROWN NORTHCORP, INC.

Crown Revenue Services, Inc., an Ohio corporation, is wholly owned subsidiary of
Crown NorthCorp, Inc.

Crown Properties, Inc., an Ohio corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Crown Revenue Services, Inc.

CRSBP Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Crown Revenue Services, Inc.

CNC Holding Corp., a Delaware corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Crown
NorthCorp, Inc.

Eastern Realty, L.L.C., a Virginia limited company, with 99% of the membership
interests owned by CNC Holding Corp., and 1% owned by Crown Revenue Services,
Inc.

Eastern Realty Corporation, a Virginia corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary
of CNC Holding Corp.

Eastern Baltimore, Inc., a Virginia corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
CNC Holding Corp.

CNC Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, is 50% owned by CNC
Holding Corp.

Crown NorthCorp Limited, organized under the laws of Great Britain, is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Crown NorthCorp, Inc.

Crown Asset Management Ltd., organized under the laws of Great Britain, is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Crown NorthCorp Limited.

Crown European Holdings Ltd., organized under the laws of Great Britain, is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Crown NorthCorp Limited.

Crown Fastigheter AB, organized under the laws of Sweden, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Crown European Holdings Ltd.

Crown European Mortgages Ltd., organized under the laws of Great Britain, is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Crown Asset Management Ltd.

<PAGE>

Rooftop Mortgages Ltd., organized under the laws of Great Britain, is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Crown Asset Management Ltd.

Crown Mortgage Management Limited, organized under the laws of Great Britain, is
a wholly owned subsidiary of Crown Asset Management Ltd.

Crown Leisure Management, Ltd., organized under the laws of Great Britain, is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Crown Mortgage Management Ltd.

TBE, organized under the laws of Belgium, is 50% owned by Crown Mortgage
Management Ltd.

Regal Mortgages, organized under the laws of Great Britain, is wholly owned by
Crown Mortgage Management Ltd. and Crown NorthCorp Limited.
<PAGE>


     INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement 
     No. 33-91368 of RTW, Inc. on Form S-8/S-3, Registration Statement No. 
     33-91372 of RTW, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 
     33-98966 of RTW, Inc. on Form S-8, and Registration Statement No. 
     333-28585 of RTW, Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports dated January 23, 1998,
     appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of RTW, Inc. for the year 
     ended December 31, 1997. 

     /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

     Minneapolis, Minnesota
     March 18, 1998
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHRISTOPHER YATOOMA,

CARRIE YATOOMA,

Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 09-13484

Hon. John Feikens 

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

Defendant. 

________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on

7/23/2010, and noted that no objections were filed by either party, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report is adopted and entered as the findings and conclusions

of this court. 

s/John Feikens 

John Feikens

United States District Judge

Dated: August 23, 2010
2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

by electronic means or U.S. Mail on August 23,

2010.

s/Carol Cohron 

Deputy Clerk
DISMISS and Opinion Filed November 1, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00784-CV IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.F., A CHILD On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-18505 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justi ce Molberg, and Justice Goldstein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns This appeal from the trial court’s Ma y 25, 2023 order modifying the parentchild relationship was filed on August 10, 2023. Because the record reflected no post-judgment motion or request for findings of fact and conc lusions of law was timely filed, it appeared the ap peal was a restricted appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 30. The notice of appeal, however, did not comp ly with the requirements for a notice of restricted appeal. See id. 25.1(d)(7). Accordingl y, we directed appe llant to file, no later than October 23, 2023, an amended notice of appeal that complied with the requirements. Although we ca utioned appellant that failu re to comply could result–2– in dismissal of the appeal without further notice, appellant has not responded to date. See id. 42.3(a), (c). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id.

230784F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.F., A CHILD
No. 05-23-00784-CV On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-18505. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating. In accordance with this Court’s op inion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee JA’MARLON FO STER recover his costs of this appeal from appellant ERICA MALONE.
Judgment entered November 1, 2023
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries
of OSullivan Industries Holdings, Inc.

|Subsidiary                                  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------
|                                            |                              
|O'Sullivan Industries, Inc.                 |                              
|O'Sullivan Furniture Factory Outlet, Inc.   |                              
|O'Sullivan Furniture Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd. |                              
|Furniture Zone Australasia Pty. Ltd.        |                              
|ACN 090 567 052 Pty. Ltd.                   |                              
|O'Sullivan Industries (Australia) Pty. Ltd. |                              
|O'Sullivan Industries UK Ltd.               |                              

---
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1 - Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 33-78412 and 333-4540) pertaining to the McWhorter
Technologies, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, McWhorter Technologies, Inc.
Employee 401(k) Savings Plan, McWhorter Technologies, Inc. 1996 Incentive
Stock Plan and McWhorter Technologies, Inc. 1996 Nonemployee Director Stock
Option and Award Plan of our report dated November 17, 1999, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of McWhorter Technologies, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended October 31, 1999.


/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
January 27, 2000
#### Ted Holloway v. State.

No. 25192.

March 7, 1951.

*W. E. Martin,*Abilene, for relator.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted and assessed a fine of $100 under an information and complaint charging that appellant “did then and there unlawfully drive and operate a motor vehicle upon the public roadways of the state while his drivers license was suspended.”

Appellant attacks the sufficiency of the information to charge an offense.

The prosecution appears to have been brought under the provisions of Art. 6687b, Vernon’s Ann. Civil Statutes, commonly referred to as the Texas Drivers License Law, Sec. 27 thereof in part providing that no person whose operator’s, commercial operator’s or chauffeur’s license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle in this state has been suspended shall operate a motor vehicle during such suspension. Sec. 44 of such act provides a punishment for such offense by fine not to exceed $200.

The information against appellant fails to allege that appellant had been issued either an operator’s commercial operator’s. *485or chauffeur’s license, or that he drove a motor vehicle while such a license was suspended.

In Hassell v. State, 149 Tex. Cr. R. 333, 194 S.W. 2d 400, an information alleging that the defendant operated a motor vehicle upon a public highway without a “drivers license” was held insufficient to charge an offense since a drivers license is not known to the law.

In Barber v. State, 149 Tex. Cr. R. 18, 191 S.W. 2d 879, a complaint charging the operation of an automobile and failure to display operator’s license, on demand of a peace officer, was held insufficient to charge an offense in the absence of an allegation that accused was, on the date of the alleged offense, a licensee.

The information being insufficient to charge an offense, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Opinion approved by the court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 24-0126

_________________

MEL COOK, LOEY KNAPP, JAMES 

WALTERS, DAVID MCKINLEY, SUSAN 

EVANS, PAT GRONINGER, and TERRI 

GRONINGER,

 Plaintiffs and Appellees,

 v.

BERTA’S FARM, LLC,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

The record was filed for purposes of this appeal on April 16, 2024. The opening 

brief is now overdue.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file, and serve the 

opening brief on appeal no later than June 28, 2024. Failure to file the brief within that 

time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all parties. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 28 2024

05/28/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0126
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                            RTW, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
  STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                1999           2000            2001
                                            ------------   ------------    ------------
<S>                                         <C>            <C>             <C>
BASIC WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING     12,290,990     10,854,839      10,303,857

STOCK OPTIONS
     Options at $5.81                              4,361             --              --
     Options at $5.00                             13,615             --              --
     Options at $4.75                              1,834             --              --
     Options at $4.50                             13,990             --              --
     Options at $4.38                             24,778             --              --
     Options at $2.67                              5,594             --              --
     Options at $2.00                              4,797             --              --
                                            ------------   ------------    ------------

WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON AND COMMON
     SHARE EQUIVALENTS OUTSTANDING            12,359,959     10,854,839      10,303,857
                                            ============   ============    ============

NET INCOME (LOSS) ($000'S)                  $      6,167   $     (9,708)   $    (23,695)
                                            ============   ============    ============

INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE:
     BASIC INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE          $       0.50   $      (0.89)   $      (2.30)
                                            ============   ============    ============
     DILUTED INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE        $       0.50   $      (0.89)   $      (2.30)
                                            ============   ============    ============
</Table>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Peyton Ashley Simpson v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00891

- CR

Trial court ca se number: 28375

Trial court: County Court of Chambers County

This appeal was abated for the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law

regarding its denial of appellant’s motions to suppress. After the findings of fact and conclusions

of law were filed in a supplemental record with the Clerk of this Court , the appeal was reinstated.

In light of the recently filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, appellant is given until 30

days after the date of this order to file supplementa l briefing regarding his appellate challenges to

the trial court’s denial of his motions to suppress. The State will have 30 days from the date that

appellant’s brief is filed to file a supplemental brief in response.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signatur e: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

Acting individually

Date: O c tober 1, 2013
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of NMSCommunications Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theperiod ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Herbert Shumway, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best ofmy knowledge:

(1)   the Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| /s/  HERBERT  SHUMWAY |
|---------------------------------|
| Herbert Shumway                 |
| Chief Financial Officer         |
| March 16, 2006             |

 

This Certification shall not be deemed part of the Reportor incorporated by reference into any of the Company’s filings with theSecurities and Exchange Commission by implication or by any reference in anysuch filings to the Report.

----
No. 12,708.

#### State of Louisiana vs. Felicien Dartez.

A bill of indictment Raving been returned against the accused, two days later he was arraigned thereunder, and, without any reservation, pleaded not guilty and elected to be tried by jury. Subsequently, on day fixed for trial, he files a motion to quash on the ground of error and irregularity in the organization of the Grand Jury.

Held: The motion to quash can not be entertained after a plea to the indictment has been entered.

APPEAL from the Seventeenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Vermilion. *De Baillon, J.*

*323*M. J. Cunningham,*Attorney General, and *M. T. Gordy, Jr.,*District Attorney (P. *A. Simmons, Jr.,*of Counsel), for Plaintiff, Appellee.

*A. & Charles Fontelieu, Edwards & Green*and *C. H. Mouton*for Defendant, Appellant.

Submitted on briefs January 29, 1898.

Opinion handed down February 7, 1898.

Rehearing refused March 7, 1898.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Blanchard, J.

The accused was indicted for petit larceny, convicted and sentenced to two years at hard labor.

He appeals, and urges as error the refusal of the trial judge to quash the indictment on motion to that effect made.

The ease is identical with that of State vs. Desire Hebert, Jr., and Laodiee Landry, appealed at the same time from the same parish, being No. 12,710 on the docket of this court, and decided at the same sitting of this court. See 50 An. —.

The facts of the two cases are exactly similar, and the law governing them the same.

For the reasons assigned in the Hebert and Landry case, the judgment appealed from herein is affirmed.