alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BECKER v. UNITED STATES RUBBER PRODUCTS, Inc., et al.

No. 16737.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 6, 1939.

For former opinion, see 183 So. 596.

Hugh M. Wilkinson, A. Miles Coe, and Weiss & Weiss, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Porteous, Johnson & Humphrey and Joseph F. Blasi, Jr., all of New Orleans, for appellees.

McCALEB, Judge.

A rehearing was granted to plaintiff in this matter in order that we might reconsider the sufficiency of the award granted by us in our original opinion. See 183 So. 596.

Counsel for plaintiff contend that our award of $500 to Mr. Becker for the injuries he sustained in the accident is grossly inadequate. They cite, in support of the proposition, the case of Hyman v. Salzer Plumbing Co., Inc., 18 La.App. 188, 135 So. 703, 138 So. 132, where an allowance of $1,500 was granted to Mr. Hyman for injuries which counsel maintain were practically identical with' those suffered by Mr. Becker.

Our examination of the cited case has satisfied us that the injuries Mr. Hyman received were considerably more serious than those of the plaintiff. With reference to the permanent injuries, a comparison of the scar on Mr. Hyman’s forehead, which is described as a bluish colored pigment about the size of a half dollar, with the scar (described in our original opinion) which appears on plaintiffs face discloses that the former was markedly disfiguring whereas the latter, while noticeable, does not appreciably detract from plaintiff’s appearance.

On the other hand, a reconsideration of the case has convinced us that the amount heretofore allowed in our original decree is somewhat inadequate. We now feel that an increase of the award by the sum of $250 will fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that our former decree be amended by increasing the amount awarded plaintiff from $768 to $1,018 and, as thus amended, it is reinstated as the final judgment of this court.

Original decree amended and reinstated.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 47144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18666]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1323-000]


Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

August 6, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is August 26, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fbbdbea9b8b4959792959ea88e8b8b94898fbb9d9e8998d59c948d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e0a6a5b2a3af8e8c898e85b39590908f9294a086859283ce878f96">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18666 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0413

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ROBERT MURRAY GIBBONS, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 14, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 7 2022

09/07/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0413
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Alfred L LaTendresse, Chief Financial Officer, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of RTW, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an Annual Report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls overfinancial reporting.        Dated: March 30, 2007 By         /s/  Alfred L. LaTendresse    Alfred L. LaTendresse    Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,Treasurer and Secretary(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
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 Annual Report of Acquired Sales Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerard M. Jacobs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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/ Gerard M. JacobsGerard M. Jacobs Principal Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer

May 16, 2011
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60087

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MAXINE MOODY,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:96-CV-117PS

- - - - - - - - - -

April 28, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DEMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maxine Moody, federal prison # 03620-043, appeals the district

court’s denial of her motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. She argues that 1) she received

ineffective assistance of counsel, 2) the sentencing court erred by

refusing to grant the Government’s motion for a downward departure,

and 3) the Government breached the plea agreement when it did not

object to the sentencing court’s refusal to grant the motion for a
No. 97-60087

-2-

downward departure and when it did not resubmit the motion within

a year of the judgment of Moody’s sentence.

Moody’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are

unsupported by the record, and she failed to establish that her

attorney’s performance was deficient or how she was prejudiced by

her attorney’s conduct. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 687 (1984). Her claim that the Government breached the plea

agreement is refuted by the record and without merit.

Moody’s argument that the district court improperly applied

the Sentencing Guidelines and refused to grant the motion for a

downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 does not give rise to a

constitutional issue cognizable in a § 2255 proceeding. United

States v. Segler, 37 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Moody’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
Order entered August 15, 2019 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00870-CV 

IN RE ROBERT JOSEPH SCHMITT, Relator 

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 296-81160-00 

ORDER 

Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Carlyle 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS for want of jurisdiction relator’s 

July 22, 2019 petition for writ of mandamus. 

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

 JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Ampersand
Medical Corporation Consolidated Balance Sheet (Unaudited) for June 30,
1999 and the Consolidated Statement of Operations (Unaudited) for the Six
Months Ended June 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>            JUN-30-1999

<CASH>                                  60
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          191
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                             96
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       528
<PP&E>                                 150
<DEPRECIATION>                          15
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                2,494
<BONDS>                                0
<COMMON>                             1,545
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         1,989
<SALES>                                542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       542
<CGS>                                  311
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          311
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     1,537
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      31
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (1,338)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (1,338)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                        (1,338)
<EPS-BASIC>                        (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.11)




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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          27,104
<SECURITIES>                                     4,795
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,581
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,249
<INVENTORY>                                      1,021
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,450
<PP&E>                                           4,685
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,289
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,091
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,384
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,091
<SALES>                                         41,532
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,532
<CGS>                                            9,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,237
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    910
<INCOME-TAX>                                       203
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       707
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
#### Abraham Gertler, Respondent, v. Brooklyn, Queens County and Suburban Railroad Company, Appellant.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0930. CATHERINE GIBSON MCCAULEY v. KTM ROOFING CO.,

INC.

This case began as a breach of contract action in magistrate court. After the

magistrate court issued judgment in favor of the defendant KTM Roofing Co., Inc.,

the plaintiff Catherine Gibson McCauley appealed to the superior court. The superior

court also entered judgment in favor of the defendant, and McCauley filed this direct

appeal. The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. 

“[A]ppeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of lower

courts by certiorari or de novo proceedings shall be by application for discretionary

appeal.” Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga. App. 874, 875 (581 SE2d 333) (2003); see also

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1). Because McCauley did not follow the proper procedure for

requesting appellate review in this case, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is

DISMISSED. Further, the defendant’s motion for sanctions is DENIED because the

motion was not filed as a separate document asrequired by Court of Appeals Rule 41

(b).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

January 25, 2018

01/25/2018
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 6D2023-1466 

Lower Tribunal No. 2021-CF-015601-A-OR 

_____________________________ 

DAMIAN ANDRE CLARKE,

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. 

Renee A. Roche, Judge. 

August 27, 2024 

PER CURIAM. 

 AFFIRMED. 

STARGEL and SMITH, JJ., and LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, concur. 

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Special Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard A. Pallas, Jr., Assistant 

Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. 

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
#### William O. Young v. State.

No. 24840.

June 21, 1950.

*Marvin H. Miller,*New Boston, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of robbery by assault, and the jury assessed his punishment at five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The state, over the objection of appellant, offered in evidence the testimony of the alleged injured party, Rufus A. Quillin, as given on the examining trial of appellant.

Without such testimony, there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.

We find no proof in the record to show that the witness was dead or was beyond the limits of the state, or proof of any fact under which such testimony might be reproduced under the terms of Arts. 749-750, C.C.P.

In the absence of such proof, appellant was entitled to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

The reproduction of such character of testimony is not permissible unless it appears that the state has brought itself within the exceptions provided in said Arts. 749-750, C.C.P. See Smith v. State, 142 Tex. Cr. R. 349, 152 S.W. 2d 751; Nixon v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 325, 109 S.W. 931; 12 Tex. Jur. Sec. 217, p. 526; 18 Tex. Jur. Secs. 111-112, p. 199.

*98The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 47197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18511]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Poxvirus Program Project 2.
    Date: September 3, 2008.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Dr., 3145, 
Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Ellen S. Buczko, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 
7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-451-2676, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#234641564059484c12634d4a424a470d4d4a4b0d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fb9e998e98819094cabb95929a929fd5959293d59c948d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; The Human Immunology Center.
    Date: September 9, 2008.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 
3146, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Kenneth E. Santora, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, NIH/NIAID/DHHS, Room 3146, 67006 
Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2605, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#315a42030007715f58591f565e47"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e756d2c2f285e70777630797168">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 5, 2008.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-18511 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


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