alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
181 La. 628

#### STATE ex rel. HAAS v. SISTERS OF THE CONVENT OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD.

No. 33352.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 26, 1935.

George M. Brooks, of New Orleans, for re-' latrix.

FOTJBNET, Justice.

Belatrix filed an application with this court for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus against the Mother Superior of the Convent of the Good Shepherd to obtain possession of Willie Lee Benson, her minor foster child.

In the case of State of Louisiana ex rel. William C. Baumann v. William L. Langridge, Sheriff, 44 La. Ann. 1014, 11 So. 541, 542, this court held:

“While the writ of habeas corpus is one of right, it is not one of course. A party seeking to avail himself of it is not at liberty to select for himself absolutely either the time or place for relief or the tribunals through which it is to be obtained. So far from conceding it to be the duty of this court to entertain and act under each and every application for the writ in which we might legally do so, we are of the opinion that we should abstain from action where this may as well be done in competent lower courts, unless there should be special circumstances in the case making immediate, direct action or intervention necessary or expedient.”

This rule of law has been repeatedly adhered to by this court. In the case of State v. Woods, 154 La. 631, 98 So. 47, 48, we said:

“Before entering the decree, we feel constrained to give notice that, in view of the fact that constitutional authority is vested in the judges and courts of original jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus in behalf of any person in actual custody, this court .will not in future consider such an application, nor issue such a writ, unless a sufficient legal reason exists for not applying to the judges or courts of original jurisdiction, or when prompt and adequate relief is not otherwise available.”

Belatrix does not allege any good or legal reason in the application for us to depart from this principle of law.

For the reasons assigned, the application is denied.

O’NIELL, O. J., concurs on the ground that the civil district court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in a case like this.
#### Irving C. Anderson, as Administrator de Bonis Non of Susan M. Anderson, Deceased, Respondent, v. Ossining Heat, Light and Power Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present — Woodward, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
#### MORGAN v. CALLIHAM.

No. 5184.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 2, 1936.

A. D. Flowers, of Jena, for appellant.

Jos. M. Reeves, of Vidalia, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

Plaintiff instituted this suit, which was a petitory action; and in the alternative prayed that, in the event the court should find his action, based upon his alleged title, not good, it fix the boundary line between his property and that of defendant.

Defendant filed a plea of res judicata, based upon a judgment rendered in a former suit between the same parties, involving the same land, in which case the demands of plaintiff were rejected and no appeal perfected from said judgment.

■The lower court sustained the plea of res judicata and ordered plaintiff’s suit dismissed, at his cost.

*181The minutes of the court of date July IS, 1935, read as follows:

> “In this suit the plea of res judicata having been heretofore tried, judgment sustaining said plea rendered this day and plaintiff’s suit ordered dismissed at his cost.

> “Counsel for plaintiff asked for a devolu-tive appeal from the ruling of the court. The same is granted and made returnable the 15th day of August, 1935, to the Honorable Court of Appeal. Bond fixed at $50.00.”

Plaintiff filed bond and lodged his appeal in this court, whereupon defendant and appellee filed a motion to dismiss, for the reason that there had not been a judgment sustaining the plea of res judicata signed or filed. It is admitted, as shown by the minutes, that a judgment was not signed or filed.

Article 565 of the Code of Practice provides that one may appeal from a final judgment rendered in a case in which an appeal is given by law. Under this article, it is necessary that there be a final judgment before an appeal will lie. Article 566 of the Code of Practice provides for appeal from interlocutory judgments in certain cases, when the judgment may cause irreparable injury. . A judgment sustaining a plea of res judicata is a final judgment and must be signed to become effective. It therefore cannot be appealed from until it is signed. Articles 539, 543, of the Code of.Practice; Hotard v. Dupont, 1 La.App. 646; State v. Oliver, 143 La. 180, 78 So. 439; Hanchey v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 135 La. 352, 65 So. 487.

It therefore follows that the appeal herein is dismissed, at appellant’s cost.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                      Exhibit 11

CAPITOL FIRST CORPORATION

Computation of Earnings per Share (Unaudited)

                                                        Year Ended September 30,
                                                          2004           2003
                                                      ------------   ------------
<S>                                                     <C>            <C>
Shares outstanding beginning of period                  29,612,054     29,290,050
Adjustment correcting prior year treasury shares:                0        322,004
Shares issued during the period:                         3,312,273              0
Shares cancelled during period:                         (3,961,693)             0
                                                      ------------   ------------
Total outstanding                                       28,962,634     29,612,054
                                                      ------------   ------------

Weighted average number of shares
     Outstanding                                        30,010,085     29,412,054
     Net loss                                             (541,178)      (911,957)
     Preferred dividends                                  (218,306)      (119,688)
     Net loss applicable to common shares             $   (759,484)  $ (1,031,645)

Earnings (loss) per share of common stock             $     (0.025)  $     (0.035)
</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00027

- CV
Michael Joseph Schmitt v. Gina Patrice Schmitt
On Appeal from the 353rd District Court of Travis County , Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D

- 1

- FM

- 21

- 005575

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having c onsidered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observanc e. April 27, 2023
#### John Wesley DE KAY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 5889.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

March 9, 1938.

John Wesley deKay, of Waynesboro, Va., pro se. for petitioner.

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

Before SPARKS and TREANOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On motion of counsel for respondent, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the petition for a review of the decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals, entered on September 20, 1935, be. and the same is hereby, dismissed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-21-00382-CR

IN RE Jaime FLORES, Relator

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 22, 2021

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

In his petition for writ of mandamus, relator asks this court to direct the trial court to 

withdraw relator’s allegedly unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary 2007 plea of guilty.

Intermediate courts of appeals have limited writ jurisdiction in criminal matters. See TEX. GOV’T

CODE § 22.221. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, however, has jurisdiction in final postconviction habeas corpus proceedings. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. arts. 4.04, 11.07; see also Ater 

v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (by 

granting writ of mandamus to vacate judgment of conviction, court of appeals usurped exclusive 

authority of Court of Criminal Appeals to grant post-conviction relief). If an applicant finds it 

necessary to complain about an action or inaction of the convicting court, the applicant may seek 

1

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2006-CR-6091, styled The State of Texas v. Jaime Flores.
04-21-00382-CR

- 2 -

relief from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). This court lacks jurisdiction over relator’s complaints 

regarding his 2007 conviction. Accordingly, we dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MOTORVAC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,943,586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,698,395
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,474,919
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,291,414
<PP&E>                                         722,197
<DEPRECIATION>                                 427,463
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,215,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,339,931
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,275
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,830,027
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,215,233
<SALES>                                     15,126,288
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,126,288
<CGS>                                        8,910,587
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,910,587
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,862,574
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (84,504)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,437,631
<INCOME-TAX>                                    38,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,399,631
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,399,631
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHRISTOPHER DIAZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 537 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of April, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

          In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stratasys, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, S. Scott Crump, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,that:

          (1)     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

| Date: March 14, 2007 | By:    | /s/ S. SCOTT CRUMP      |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                 |   |                         |
|                 |   | S. Scott Crump          |
|                 |   | Chief Executive Officer |
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

                    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the Clinical Research Review  Committee, September 24, 2008, 8 a.m. to September 24, 2008, 5 p.m., Hilton Washington DC/Rockville, Hotel & Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 31, 2008, 73 FR 148 page 44756.                 

This meeting will be replaced by a Special Emphasis Panel. 

Dated: August 7, 2008. 

Anna Snouffer, 

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-18744 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 158 (Thursday, August 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 47611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18816]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement


Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension of a 
Currently Approved Information Collection

ACTION: Correction to Notice of Information Collection Under Review; 
Form I-246, Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal, OMB No. 
1653-0021.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (USICE), has submitted the following information 
collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was 
previously published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2008, Vol. 
73, No. 59 16035, and on June 2, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 106 31499. This 
document contains corrections to certain portions of those notices that 
were published erroneously.

Correction

    <bullet> In the Overview of This Information Collection section, 
Item 1 is corrected as follows: Type of Information Collection: 
Extension of currently approved information collection.
    <bullet> In the Overview of This Information Collection section, 
Item 5 is corrected as follows: An estimate of the total number of 
respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent 
to respond: 10,000 responses at 30 minutes (0.5 hours) per response.
    <bullet> In the Overview of This Information Collection section, 
Item 6 is corrected as follows: An estimate of the total public burden 
(in hours) associated with the collection: 5,000 annual burden hours.

    Dated: August 11, 2008.
Lee Shirkey,
Chief, Records Management Branch Chief, United States Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E8-18816 Filed 8-13-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-28-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0547

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. 

BEAU HERMAN MILLER,

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 March 5, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s 

opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 8 2021

02/08/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0547
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #11364 and #11365]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Mississippi dated 08/06/2008. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Flash Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         07/29/2008. *Effective Date:*
                         08/06/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/05/2008. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         05/06/2009.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M Mitravich, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties:  Forrest Contiguous Counties: Mississippi Covington, Jones, Lamar, Pearl River, Perry, Stone *The Interest Rates are:* PercentHomeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.375Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.687Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
8.000Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.250Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11364 6 and for economic injury is 11365 0. The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Mississippi. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: August 6, 2008. Jovita Carranza, Acting Administrator.


[FR Doc. E8-18565 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Merle Blankenship, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Tretter, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 65-80. (Abstract of Decision.)

Fifth District.

September 15, 1966.

Richard E. White, of Murphysboro, for appellant; Feirieh & Feirieh, of Carbondale, for appellee.

Opinion by JUSTICE MORAN. Not to be published in full.
**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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe
      Line
      Company, LP (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Richard N. Marshall, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
      of
      the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (i) the Report fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.





/s/   RICHARD
      N. MARSHALL


Name:
      Richard N. Marshall


Title:   Senior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date:   November
      9, 2007










This
      Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
      Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
      general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert C. GANDY, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 72-2159

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 7, 1972.

Ralph E. Coleman, Birmingham, Ala., for defendant-appellant.

Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., Melton L. Alexander, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant-appellant Gandy appeals from a conviction of selling Cecil Leon Click five counterfeit federal reserve notes. 18 U.S.C. § 473. We affirm.

Gandy contends that the trial court erred in allowing the government to rehabilitate Click, who testified for the government, with evidence of prior consistent statements. On cross-examination of Click, defense counsel had attempted to impeach him by establishing that Click had a grudge against Gandy arising from an altercation between the two men in 1966. Gandy argues that *1135because the prior consistent statements were made after this date, they were inadmissible. After Click’s motive in testifying as he did was put in issue by the defense, evidence of prior consistent statements and the circumstances under which they were made was relevant and proper to an evaluation of Click’s motive for making the statements. *See*United States v. Bays, 448 F.2d 977, 979 (5th Cir., 1971); United States v. Stamey, 423 F.2d 1223 (4th Cir., 1970); Copes v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 234, 345 F.2d 723 (1964). *See also,*United States v. Leggett, 312 F.2d 566 (4th Cir., 1962).

We have considered appellant’s other argument and find it meritless. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.