alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
224 So.2d 616

#### Thomas Lester DUNAWAY, Administrator, etc. v. Howard D. BODILLY, Jr.

5 Div. 853.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 12, 1969.

Tom Radney, John Dillon, Alexander City, for appellant.

Samford, Torbert & Denson, Opelika, and Charles R. Adair, Jr., Dadeville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, suing in his fiduciary capacity as administrator of the estate of Robert Earl Dunaway, deceased, sought to recover damages of appellee for negligently killing the intestate Dunaway in a collision between two automobiles, in one of which decedent was riding and defendant in the other. The trial court at the conclusion of the testimony gave the affirmative charge with hypothesis for the defendant. Plaintiff here appeals from the judgment entered in response to the verdict. He says that the trial court committed reversible error in directing the verdict.

Rule 9, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, effective June 1, 1955 (see Appendix, Title 7, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, Recompiled Code 1958; 261 Ala., Preface, p. XXII), provides that appellant’s brief shall contain:

> “ * * * (b) under the heading ‘Statement of the Facts,’ a condensed recital of the evidence in narrative form so as to present the substances clearly and concisely, referring to the pages of the transcript, and if the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or finding, in fact or law, is assigned, then the statement shall contain a condensed recital of the evidence given by each witness in narrative form bearing on the points in issue so as to fully present the substance of the testimony of the witness clearly and concisely; * * * ”

The record contains 101 pages of transcript paper upon which the evidence is recorded. Appellant devotes one and one-half pages of his brief (regulation size) to a narration of the testimony. This narration appears under “Statement of Facts.” Appellee contends, and correctly so, that ap*259pellant has failed to comply with Rule 9, *supra,*and that we should not consider the assignment charging error on the part of the trial court in directing a verdict for defendant because of the insufficiency of the evidence. Because of this omission and failure to observe Rule 9, *supra,*we are impelled to omit consideration of appellant’s assignment. Trawick v. Pargo, Inc., 277 Ala. 254, 169 So.2d 19; Employers Insurance Company of Alabama v. Watkins Const. Co., 280 Ala. 681, 198 So.2d 258.

It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court be and it is affirmed.

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

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON, MERRILL and PIARWOOD, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8


                      2003 PERFORMANCE PROFIT SHARING PLAN


All employees of the Company are eligible to receive cash profit sharing based
on the 2003 year-end results of the RTW, Inc. and its Subsidiary. The annual
profit sharing plan is based on exceeding the Company's pre-tax, pre-profit
sharing profit plan for 2003. Forty percent (40%) of any excess profit over the
plan, up to a maximum level, will be shared with all employees. The profit
sharing will be distributed as a percentage (%) of salary to all employees. Cash
profit sharing payments are made annually after completion of the year-end
audit.

Executive officers and management personnel, additionally, earn stock options
based upon exceeding the company's pre-tax, pre-profit sharing profit plan for
2003. Executives and management personnel are eligible for a fixed number of
options, pro-rated on a sliding scale, in excess of the profit plan, up to a
maximum level. Stock option grants will be made annually after completion of the
year-end audit.
#### James L. BOSLER, Christopher Hashioka, Cameron Rottler, Jay S. Walker, Don C. Golightly, Jackie Woodfield, Suzanne Adkins, and Towne Lake Village Apartments, Ltd. v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 95-1239.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan. 10, 1997.

Appeal from 17th District Court, Tarrant County, Fred W. Davis, Judge.

Prior report: Tex.App., 906 S.W.2d 635.

The joint agreed motion of petitioners and respondent for rehearing and reformation of judgment in the Court of Appeals for Second District of Texas, and memorandum of settlement of all claims, is granted in part. Petitioners’ motion for rehearing, as corrected, filed on July 18, 1996, is granted without reference to the merits and the application for writ of error is granted, also without reference to the merits.

The judgments of the courts below are vacated without reference to the merits and the cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment in accordance with the settlement agreement of the parties.
Order entered April 20, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00127-CV

MATTHEW SIDWELL, Appellant

V.

ZUO MODERN CONTEMPORARY, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-03192-E

ORDER

The clerk’s record that has been filed in this appeal does not include a copy 

of the appealed order, the trial court’s order granting defendant’s amended 

traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment. Accordingly, 

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(c)(1), we ORDER Dallas 

County Clerk John F. Warren to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a 

copy of the summary judgment order no later than May 4, 2020. The clerk’s 
record shall also contain a copy of the amended summary judgment motions and 

the October 28, 2019 “order – judge’s ruling.”

We note the deadline for filing appellant’s brief has been set for May 6, 

2020. However, because the clerk’s record is not complete, appellant’s brief is not 

yet due and appellant need not file his brief. The court will set the deadline for 

filing appellant’s brief once the record is complete and the Court has determined 

whether it has jurisdiction over the appeal.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Mr. 

Warren and the parties.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
#### Alonzo WILLIAMS, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 53095.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 11, 1997.

*347A. Renae Adamson, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and SPINDEN and HOWARD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Alonzo Williams appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief. Williams pled guilty to one count of robbery in the first degree and one count of armed criminal action. He claims that he was compelled to enter a guilty plea because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate alibi witnesses.

Affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50672

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EVERARDO SALAZAR-PERALTA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:05-CR-338-ALL

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

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Everardo SalazarPeralta raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate

criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Proving the Last Will and Testament of Harriet L. Marks, Deceased.

Ordered that the interested persons named be brought in, and that service be made,upon those within the State in the manner required for the personal service of a summons, and upon those outside of the State by mailing to them a copy of said notice, which service shall be sufficient.
EXHIBIT 32.1, 32.2 Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)   I, Adam Anthony, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer, of Aftermarket Enterprises, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 2009 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Dated:  May 20, 2009 By:  /s/ Adam Anthony  Adam Anthony  Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer  * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Aftermarket Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Aftermarket Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002


10-K




| |    |                                                                                                                                                             
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 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.



| |          
| | ---------
| | RTW, Inc.

|                      |  |                                                                                                                                     
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 30, 2006 |  | By /s/ Jeffrey B. MurphyJeffrey B. Murphy
    President and Chief Executive Officer                                                 
|                      |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                                                                                                       
|                     
|Dated: March 30, 2006 |  | By /s/ Alfred L. LaTendresseAlfred L. LaTendresse
    Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
    Treasurer and Secretary
|                      |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
18461.

#### Johnson *et al. v.*Johnson.

Argued January 12, 1954

Decided February 9, 1954.

*Ray C. Norvell, Fenster & Fenster,*for plaintiffs in error. *H. B. Edwards, Sr., H. B. Edwards, Jr., W. J. Gibbons,*contra.

Duckworth,- Chief Justice.

Ezekiel and Bessie Johnson filed an action for annulment of an alleged fraudulent marriage of the defendant, Yerta Lee Mitchell Johnson, to their deceased son, alleging fraud in procuring said marriage, which is therefore null and void. After a hearing on a general demurrer filed thereto, the court below passed an order sustaining the same, and the exception here is to this judgment. *Held:*

Since the alleged grounds of annulment here are fraud in obtaining the marriage, which is a valid ground for divorce in this State, an action for annulment can not be maintained alleging a ground for divorce. *Baxter*v. *Rogers,*195 *Ga.*274 (24 S. E. 2d 52); *Mackey*v. *Mackey,*198 *Ga.*707 (32 S. E. 2d 764); *Burke*v. *Grubbs,*199 *Ga.*706 (35 S. E. 2d 268). It therefore follows that the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
State of New York

Court of Appeals This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to 

revision before publication in the New York Reports.

No. 18 

Curby Toussaint,

 Respondent,

 v.

Port Authority of New York and 

New Jersey,

 Appellant,

et al.,

 Defendants.

Christian H. Gannon, for appellant.

Brian J. Shoot, for respondent.

Reargument ordered for a future Court session. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, 

Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur.

Decided April 1, 2021
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES - OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Protection One, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the yearended December 31, 2009  (the “Report”),which this certification accompanies, I, Richard Ginsburg, in my capacity asPresident and Chief Executive Officer of Protection One, Inc., certifythat to the best of my knowledge the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Protection One, Inc.

 

 
| Date: April 30, 2010 |   | /s/ Richard Ginsburg                                              |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Richard Ginsburg                                                  |
|                      |   | President and Chief Executive Officer, Protection  One, Inc. |

 

 

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

 

----
#### Frank Pietschker, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. No opinion.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50672 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus EVERARDO SALAZAR-PERALTA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CR-338-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Everardo SalazarPeralta raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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 the Interior

###### Fish and Wildlife Service 

          - [FWS-R1-FHC-2008-N0206; 81331-1334-8TWG-W4] 

# AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG) affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the Trinity Management Council (TMC). This notice announces a TAMWG meeting, which is open to the public. 

# DATES:

TAMWG will meet from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday, August 25, 2008 and from 8:30 to 1 on Tuesday, August 26, 2008. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Weaverville Victorian Inn, 1709 Main St., 299 West, Weaverville, CA 96093. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Randy A. Brown of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521;                         *telephone:*                         (707) 822-7201. Randy A. Brown is the TAMWG Designated Federal Officer. For background information and questions regarding the Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP), please contact Douglas Schleusner, Executive Director, Trinity River Restoration Program, P.O. Box 1300, 1313 South Main Street, Weaverville, CA 96093;                         *telephone:*                         (530) 623-1800;                         *E-mail: dschleusner@mp.usbr.gov*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), this notice announces a meeting of the (TAMWG). 

Primary objectives of the meeting will include discussion of the following topics: 
    - TRRP construction program,
    - TRRP budget,
    - Integrated Assessment Plan,
    - Trinity River Hatchery goals and policies, and
    - Response to CDR Situation Assessment.

Completion of the agenda is dependent on the amount of time each item takes. The meeting could end early if the agenda has been completed. 

Dated: July 24, 2008. 

Randy A. Brown, 

Designated Federal Officer, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, CA.

[FR Doc. E8-18696 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
179 La. 339

#### CONVERSE v. DICKS.

No. 32361.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 26, 1934.

See, also, 176 La. 805, 146 So. 891; 178 La. 193, 151 So. 75.

*18Louis R. Hoover, of New Orleans, for appellant.

William 0. McLeod, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

OVERTON, Justice.

Plaintiff obtained a moneyed judgment in the civil district court for the parish of Orleans against defendant, who at the time was, and is still, an interdict. Plaintiff caused a writ of fieri facias to issue from the judgment and under it undertook to garnishee the curator to collect the judgment. To the garnishment proceeding, the curator excepted on the ground that he was not a third person, as to the interdict, within the Code of Practice, providing for garnishment proceedings under writs of fieri facias to enable a judgment creditor to seize money and property of his judgment debtor in the hands of a third person, and therefore that, the curator not being a third person, as to the interdict, he, as to her, is not subject to garnishment. The trial court overruled the exception, and the curator has appealed.

The trial court erred in overruling the exception. An interdict, in law, is incapable of acting and of administering his estate. There is nothing which he is capable of doing legally. His curator acts and administers for him. In all matters pertaining to the possession, keeping, care, administration,' and preservation of the interdict’s estate, the curator stands in his place and stead. In such matters, the interdict has no legal existence, except through his curator, in whom “he lives, moves and has his being.” His curator is substituted for him, is the human agency through whom the interdict acts, and the two are legally inseparable. Therefore the curator of the interdict is not a third person, as to the interdict, and hence the exception must be sustained, for it is only third persons to the suit in which the moneyed judgment is rendered who may be garnisheed, and not parties to the suit. Civ. Code, arts. 32, 389, 1788; Code Prac., arts. 108, 109, 115, 246.

An exception of no cause of action was filed by the curator to another proceeding — a rule —in the case. This exception was sustained. No complaint is here made to the ruling there. The ruling is not included in the appeal.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment, appealed from, overruling the exception to the right of plaintiff to garnishee the curator is set aside, and the exception is now sustained, and the garnishment proceeding is dismissed.

ST. PAUL, J., absent.
#### Ignatius Custar v. William L. Abbott.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
#### The State, ex rel. Wilke et al., *v.*Newton, Judge.

(No. *23439*

Decided June 15, 1932.)

*Mr. F. E. Wilke*and *Mr. S. J.*Blair, for relators.

The defendant herein being in default of answer or demurrer to relators’ petition for mandamus, a peremptory mandamus is hereby allowed against the defendant.

It is ordered that the defendant immediately on service of this order permit the relators, Frank E. Wilke and Silas J. Blair, to act as attorneys for plaintiff in that certain action docketed in the court of common pleas of Portage county, Ohio, as civil case No. 12966 entitled “The Union Trust Company, a corporation, plaintiff, vs. Schustrich et al., defendants,” without requiring said relators then to be accompanied by or associated with other counsel; and said defendant is further ordered to accord said relators such rights and privileges in said court while so acting as *641such attorneys in said action as they may he entitled to be accorded by virtue of their office as members of the Bar of Ohio without imposing as a condition thereof that they then be associated or act in concert with other counsel;

*Writ allowed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Stephenson, JJ., concur.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Tootle Construction, LLC ) ASBCA No. 63581

)

Under Contract No. FA4819-15-D-0002 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Laurence J. Zielke III, Esq.

Janice M. Theriot, Esq.

 Zielke Law Firm, PLLC

 Louisville, KY

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Caryl A. Potter III, Esq.

 Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney

Aaron J. Weaver, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The parties have settled the dispute and appellant consented to the 

government’s motion to dismiss. We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal with 

prejudice.

Dated: February 9, 2024

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

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63581, Appeal of Tootle 

Construction, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: February 12, 2024

DANIEL S. HERZFELD

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals