alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John BOYD, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. UNITY INDUSTRIAL LIFE INS. CO., Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14222.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 14, 1932.

' Chas. J. Mundy, Of New Orleans, for appellant.

J. Alonzo Woodville, of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, J.

This is an appeal from a Judgment admittedly correct upon the record as made up below. No testimony on behalf of appellant is in the record, for' the r.eason that the case was tried in the absence of its counsel. An application for a new trial was made, and resulted in the issuance of a ’rule nisi. This rule was also tried and discharged in the absence of counsel for appellant. No explanation of these absences of counsel appears in the record, but we are told in argument that, in the one case, a letter had been1 written to opposing counsel seeking a continuañce'üpon the ground of engagement elsewhere, and, in the other, counsel was somewhat tardy in making his appearance in court, arriving only after the judgment discharging the rule had been rendered. It is not pretended that a legal ground for a continuance existed in either instance, but añ appeal is made here for the remanding of the ease in the alleged interest of justice.

The statements of counsel orally made are unconfirmed by anything in the record, but, if we accept this informal presentation of the matter at its face value, it would not justify a remand.

Consequently, and for the reasons herein assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4072 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4072

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the 
 alternative minimum tax shall not apply to installment sales of farm 
                               property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 12, 1996

     Mr. Nethercutt (for himself, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Hastings of 
 Washington) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the 
 alternative minimum tax shall not apply to installment sales of farm 
                               property.

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

SECTION 1. MINIMUM TAX NOT TO APPLY TO FARMERS' INSTALLMENT SALES.

    (a) In General.--The last sentence of paragraph (6) of section 
56(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to treatment of 
installment sales in computing alternative minimum taxable income) is 
amended to read as follows: ``This paragraph shall not apply to any 
disposition--
                    ``(A) in the case of a taxpayer using the cash 
                receipts and disbursements method of accounting, 
                described in section 453(l)(2)(A) (relating to farm 
                property), or
                    ``(B) with respect to which an election is in 
                effect under section 453(l)(2)(B) (relating to 
                timeshares and residential lots).''
    (b) Effective Dates.--
            (1) In general.--The amendment made by this section shall 
        apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1987.
            (2) Special rule for 1987.--In the case of taxable years 
        beginning in 1987, the last sentence of section 56(a)(6) of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect for such taxable 
        years) shall be applied by inserting ``or in the case of a 
        taxpayer using the cash receipts and disbursements method of 
        accounting, any disposition described in section 453(l)(2)(A)'' 
        after ``section 453C(e)(4)''.
                                 <all>
```
223 So.2d 603

#### John Allen PADGETT v. STATE of Alabama.

4 Div. 359.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 29, 1969.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Richard F. Calhoun, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Smith • '& Smith, Dothan, opposed.

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

SIMPSON, Justice.

Petition of the State, by its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Padgett v. State, 45 Ala.App. 56, 223 So.2d 597.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and COLEMAN and BLOODWORTH, JJ., concur.
#### Josephine Klein, Respondent, v. Aurelia E. Runk, as Administratrix, etc., of Charles E. Runk, Deceased, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
#### Tuli Goldenthal and Michael Goldenthal, Composing the Firm of Goldenthal Brothers, Respondents, v. Kalman Popper, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 153 (Thursday, August 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18161]



[[Page 45969]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XJ62


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Notice of Public 
Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will 
host a public workshop on proposed gear modifications to trawl sweeps 
used in the BSAI flatfish fisheries, at Dantrawl, in Seattle.

DATES: The meeting will be held on September 8, 2008, 1 p.m.-5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Dantrawl, 1121 NW 52nd, Seattle, WA 98107.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 
4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Evans, Council staff, Phone: 
907-271-2809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agenda will be as follows:
    (1) Introductions; (2) Latest research results; (3) Gear designs 
(bobbins, placement, rope types, with net reels and without net reels, 
practical applications); (4) Council June motion; (5) Draft 
regulations; (6) Monitoring and enforcement issues (identify problems 
and suggest solutions).
    These meetings are physically accessible to people with 
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at 907-271-2809 at 
least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 4, 2008.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8-18161 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Josh Demidio , Appellant

No. 06

- 21

- 00102

- CV v.
Paris Police Department Officers Helms, Peek and Hines , Appellee Appeal from the 62nd District Court of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 90565 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice

van Cleef

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Steven s participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed

for want of prosecu tion . Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. We further order that the appellant, Josh Demidio , pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal.

RENDERED JUNE 24, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
221 So.2d 116

#### Ollie Marie STEWART v. Elzie STEWART.

8 Div. 318.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 13, 1969.

Bryce U. Graham, Tuscumbia, for appellant.

Bedford & Bedford, Russellville, for appellee.

HARWOOD, Justice.

This is an appeal of a decree of divorce rendered upon a bill of complaint filed by Elzie Stewart, the husband, against Ollie Marie Stewart. Cruelty was the ground asserted in the bill as a basis for the divorce. The respondent wife perfected this appeal.

Appellant has assigned three errors, and assignment of error No. 1 is to the effect that the evidence is insufficient to support the decree.

The brief of counsel for the appellant is only a page' and a half in length. It contains no statement of the case, no statement of the facts, and no authorities are cited. In the narration set forth under “Brief and Argument,” it is stated that the appellant “raises no serious question of law for review.”

It is the theme of counsel’s argument or narration that the evidence '-is insufficient to support the decree, and counsel *4concludes with the statement that appellant submits this cause for review on the testimony contained in the record.

Supreme Court Rule 9 requires that if the insufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment or decree is assigned as error, the appellant’s brief shall contain a condensed recital of the evidence given by each witness bearing on the points in issue. Appellant’s brief being faulty in complying with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 9, is in effect an abandonment of the assignment of error questioning the sufficiency of the evidence to support the decree. Steele v. Steele, 277 Ala. 13, 166 So.2d 790.

For the reasons stated above, the decree is due to be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and MERRILL, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1














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 Quarterly Report of FLM Minerals Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Xin Chen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 19th day of July, 2011.








XIN CHENXin ChenChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
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 Protection One, Inc. and Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. (the "Companies") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), which this certification accompanies, I, Darius G. Nevin, in my capacity as Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify that to the best of my knowledge the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.

|Date: March 16, 2005 |  | /s/DARIUS G. NEVINDarius G. Nevin                                                                                    |  | 
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Protection One, Inc. and Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc.

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Companies as part
of the Report or as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section 18 or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---



QuickLinks
#### Lovejoy, Appellant, *v.*Duquesne Street Railway Company.

Argued Nov. 12, 1907.

Appeal, No. 187, Oct. T., 1907, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1907, No. 1095, dismissing bill in equity in case of Francis T. F. Lovejoy et al. v. Duquesne Street Railway Company and the Bellefield Street Railway Company.

Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

January 6, 1908:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Elkin,

For the reasons stated in an opinion handed down at No. 186, October Term, 1907, ante, p. 635, the decree entered by the learned court below is affirmed at the cost of appellants.
Exhibit 99.2

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 NMS Communications Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert E. Hult, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

(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.

|/s/ROBERT E. HULTRobert E. Hult
Chief Financial Officer
March 25, 2003 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

This
Certification shall not be deemed part of the Report or incorporated by reference into any of the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission by implication or by
any reference in any such filings to the Report.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                          568
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                155,930
<PP&E>                          114,366
<DEPRECIATION>                  16,843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  253,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           5,246,555
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     287
<COMMON>                        4,410
<OTHER-SE>                      5,188,405
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    253,453
<SALES>                         6,036,983
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                6,036,983
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   10,827,616
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                10,580,368
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              635,926
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (16,006,927)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (16,006,927)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (16,006,927)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (4.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (4.78)




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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,271
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,076
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,070
<INVENTORY>                                      1,643
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,207
<PP&E>                                         184,232
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,428
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 218,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,109
<BONDS>                                        135,833
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   218,824
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               309,880
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  302,965
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   322
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,645
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,052)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2,447)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,605)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,605)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.98)
        

</TABLE>
226 So.2d 82

#### Lillie Mae GREEN v. Bright GREEN.

8 Div. 239.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 14, 1969.

Taylor & Taylor, Russellville, for appellant.

George E. Barnett, Jr., Bradshaw & Barnett, Florence, for appellee.

SIMPSON, Justice.

The appellant, plaintiff below, is the wife of appellee, defendant below. The wife sued her husband charging him with negligence and wanton misconduct in connection with an automobile accident between the husband’s automobile and one driven by one Bishop. The wife was riding in the automobile driven by her husband. The wife also sued Bishop, but he was stricken as a defendant. The defendant husband entered a plea setting up the payment of $2,000 to the wife by the stricken defendant Bishop, and claimed credit in that amount against any damages which might be awarded his wife against him. The case went to the jury on the negligence count, the wanton count, a plea of the general issue, and one of contributory negligence, the plea claiming a credit for the payment made by the stricken defendant and a plea setting up the guest statute. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

The plaintiff has appealed, stating at the outset in brief that “* * * there is a strong tendency of the evidence to *479show cumulative acts and omissions which amount to wanton misconduct. Because of this, it is the contention of petitioner that the refusal of plaintiff’s requested charges six and eight are erroneous”.

Although no assignments of error are argued in brief of appellant, we will consider the only issue argued, i. e. whether the court erred in refusing her charges six and eight. These charges are:

> “No. 6. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if the defendant committed several acts of simple negligence the cumulative effect of such may be considered in determining whether the defendant was guilty of wanton negligence.

> * * * * * * “No. 8. I charge you gentlemen of the jury, that if you are reasonably satisfied from all the evidence in this case that Mr. Green was guilty of several acts of simple negligence you may consider the cumulative effect of such several negligent acts in deciding whether wanton conduct has been established.”

Without in any manner approving these charges as correct statements of the law, even if they were so approved, -the trial court did not err in refusing them since wantonness was fairly and adequately defined for the jury in the court’s oral charge. Alabama Great So. R. Co. v. Baum, 249 Ala. 442, 31 So.2d 366; Duke v. Williams, 249 Ala. 574, 32 So.2d 362; Price v. McConnell, 250 Ala. 686, 36 So.2d 80; Hillman Hotel v. McHaley, 251 Ala. 655, 38 So.2d 566; Title 7, § 273, Ala.Digest, Trial <©=258 (1).

Nothing further having been argued by appellant, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

• Affirmed.

COLEMAN, HARWOOD and BLOOD-WORTH, JJ., concur..
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Louis M. Koster, Appellant, v. Edmond J. Butler, Commissioner of the Tenement House Department of the City of New York, Respondent.

Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FILED
AS PART OF THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                  234,917
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         3,922,843
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      4,603,349
<PP&E>                                                  687,741
<DEPRECIATION>                                          516,618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       12,597,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 5,943,163
<BONDS>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                 38,197
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                            8,928,376
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         12,597,279
<SALES>                                              67,243,713
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     67,243,713
<CGS>                                                61,023,970
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        61,023,970
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      5,234,047
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      516,698
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         468,998
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (336,263)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     805,261
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                            805,261
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               .21

        

</TABLE>
ACCEPTED

01-15-00110-cv

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

2/11/2015 2:37:38 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/11/2015 2:37:38 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk