alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0618 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. ANDREW DAVID LARSON,

Defendant and Appellant .

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until February 5 , 2024, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court December 27 2023

12/27/2023
Case Number: DA 23-0618
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 amended Quarterly Report of Midas
Medici Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended
September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Nana Baffour, Chief Executive 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.











Date: December 23, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      Nana BaffourNana
      Baffour
              Chief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)
#### Johnson *v.*Royal Insurance Company of Liverpool, Appellant.

*Judgment*— Opening *judgment*— Judgment *by default*— Discretion *of court.*

On an application to open a judgment entered for want of a plea, where it appears that the same issue had already been tried in several previous suits, and the defendant puts in evidence a record of such suits, and very little additional evidence, the court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to open the judgment.

Argued Oct. 28, 1907.

Appeal, No. 305, Jan. T., 1907, by defendant, from order of C. P. Fayette Co., Dec. T., 1906, *183No. 325, discharging rule to open judgment in case of Daniel J. Johnson and Charles H. Gorley v. Royal Insurance Company of Liverpool.

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

Affirmed.

Rule to open judgment.

Before Umbel, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

*Error assigned*was the order of the court.

*W. K.*Jennings, with him *Dale C. Jennings*and *Jones & Henderson,*for appellant.

*W. J. Sturgis,*of *Howell, Sturgis & Morrow,*for appellee.

November 11, 1907:

Per Curiam,

The judgment appearing to be entirely regular according to the rules of court in Fayette county, the application to open it was addressed solely to the equitable discretion of the court.

The only contest in the case was upon a question of fact, the amount of damages to the plaintiff by the fire. This same issue had already been tried in several previous suits on other policies covering the same risk. The evidence in those cases ivas conflicting, but in regard to it the learned judge said: “ If the verdicts of the jury had been for the full amount of the policies instead of only about ninety-three per cent, under the evidence ive would have hesitated to disturb them. For taking into consideration the experience of the men who testified on both sides, their opportunities for acquainting themselves with the facts regarding which they testified, the times — with reference to the date of the fire — at which they made their examinations, the condition of the building at these several times and the manner and character of the examinations, convince us that the weight of the credible testimony was witli the contention of the plaintiffs, and it was ample to have justified us in sustaining a verdict of 100 cents on the dollar if such had been returned by the jury.” On the hearing of this rule the appellants put in evidence the record of the previous suits and very little additional evidence on the amount of the loss. The learned judge having before him the *184verdicts in those suits and being satisfied with them, naturally refused to open this judgment to reach what would in all probability be the same result.

Order affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6696

JEFFREY SERVIDIO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SERGEANT PITTMAN; SERGEANT PRICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief 

District Judge. (5:13-ct-03072-D)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Servidio, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly D. Grande, NORTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Servidio seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his motion for appointment of counsel. This court may 

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Servidio seeks 

to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory 

or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Servidio’s motion for 

appointment of counsel on appeal and dismiss the appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
(173 La. 390)

#### ROY O. MARTIN LUMBER CO. v. MULLEN.

No. 28476.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 28, 1927.

*73John B. Pournet, of Jennings, and T. Arthur Edwards, of Lake Charles, for appellant

Modisette & Adams, of Jennings, for appel-lee’

BRUNOT, J.

Prom a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant upon the main demand in the suit, and in favor of defendant and against the plaintiff for a part of the sum claimed in defendant’s reconventional demand, the defendant appealed. The order of appeal is dated January 5, 1927, and the return day fixed therein is February 15, 1927. The transcript was received and filed by the clerk of this court on February 16, 1927. On February 18, 1927, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that no extension of time had been asked for, and therefore the transcript was filed too late. In support thereof plaintiff cites articles 587 and 588 of the Code of Practice.

The defendant answered the motion to dismiss ; alleged that the transcript was prepared and forwarded, by express, to the clerk of the Supreme Court on February 14, 1927, and that it reached its destination and was filed within the days of grace allowed by law.

It appears that February 15, 1927, was the original return day, and the transcript was filed in this court on the day following that date. It is the law and the well-established jurisprudence of this state that an appeal will not be dismissed upon the ground alleged-in plaintiff’s motion herein. An appeal will be dismissed only where the transcript 1⁄8 not filed within three judicial days after the return day and no extension of time is regularly granted. Holz v. Fishel et al., 40 La. Ann. 295, 3 So. 888; Redmond v. Mann, 23 La. Ann. 373; Brickell v. Conner, 10 La. Ann. 235; Farmers’, etc., v. Strawbridge, 24 La. Ann. 126; Vancampen v. Morris, 6 Rob. 79; Palfrey v. Winter, 8 La. 206; Pond v. Horton, 7 La. 176; Rhea v. Steamer Simonds, 15 La. Ann. 712; Lacroix v. Bonin, 33 La. Ann. 119; Pierce v. Cushing, 33 La. Ann. 401; Police Jury of New Orleans v. Garrett, 19 La. Ann. 122; Copley v. Routh, 3 La. Ann. 189; Cousin v. Johnson, 21 La. Ann. 210; Dalton v. Viasco et al., 18 La. Ann. 651; Moriere v. Robinson & Jones, 20 La. Ann. 229; Verret v. Gaudin, 28 La. Ann. 138; French v. Harrod, 9 La. Ann. 21; Ducournau v. Levistones, 3 La. Ann. 245; Wood & Roan v. Wood, 32 La. Ann. 804; Mix v. Hawkins, 115 La. 12, 38 So. 877; Levy v. Levy, 52 La. Ann. 1920, 28 So. 246; Hays v. Mayer, 117 La. 1067, 42 So. 505.

For these reasons, the motion to dismiss is overruled,
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE STATE OF:

JANE BISHOP MOORE, DECEASED

,

Appellant. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00298

- C V

Appeal from the

County Court at Law

of Reeves C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2590P )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the County Clerk ’ s request for an extension of time within which to

file the Clerk ’ s Record until March 18 , 2015. NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO F ILE THE CLERK ’ S RECORD WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Dianne O. Florez

, County Clerk , for Reeves County, Texas

prepare the Clerk ’ s Record , and forward the same to this Court on or before March 18 , 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5 th day of March , 20 1 5

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rodriguez

, and Hughes, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
financial  statements for the three month period ended June 30, 1995 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000075053
<NAME>                        D-lanz Development Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     $
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive and Financial Officer, 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 Coyote Resources, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Earl Abbott, President and Treasurer of the Company, certifies to the best of her knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Coyote Resources, Inc., and will be retained by Coyote Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/ Earl AbbottEarl Abbott

President, Secretary, Treasurer

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)

November 22, 2010
* 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. 97-60317

Conference Calendar

 

CLEVELAND CLAY ARMOND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TERRY CARNEY; PATTY LYNE CARNEY; JOHN DOE,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:97-CV-167WS

- - - - - - - - - -

December 9, 1997

Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cleveland Clay Armond, Mississippi prisoner #34189, appeals

the dismissal as frivolous of his pro se, in forma pauperis

civil-rights lawsuit against his former father-in-law, Terry

Carney; his ex-wife, Patty Lyne Carney; and her present husband,

identified only as John Doe (collectively referred to as “the

defendants”). Armond argues that the district court erred in

concluding that he had failed to allege any state action in

connection with his allegation that the defendants violated his
No. 97-60317

-2-

constitutional rights during the course of having his parental

rights judicially terminated.

Armond has failed to allege that the defendants acted under

the color of law, and his claim is therefore not actionable under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144,

150 (1970). His appeal is without arguable merit and is

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Armond is cautioned that the filing of any additional

frivolous lawsuits or appeals will result in his being barred

from proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to the Prison

Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DISMISSED.
#### Paul THIBODEAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. O. LANDRY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13943.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 11, 1932.

On Rehearing, Feb. 15, 1932.

Richard A. Dowling and Gerald Netter, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

W. J. & H. W. Waguespack, of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, J.

The plaintiff, Thibodeaux, bought from defendant, Landry, the Gentilly Hotel & -Restaurant, its furniture, equipment, etc., for the sum of $2,000, $1,600 of which was paid in cash, and for the remainder, $400, two promissory notes of $200 each were given. This suit is based on these notes.

Defendant contends that the restaurant was warranted to be free from debt, and that, since its acquisition, he has been obliged to pay a .number of bills amounting to $164. He has pleaded the aggregate of these items by way of set-off, and was allowed, by the trial court, $137.50 judgment being rendered against him for the remainder. Plaintiff alone has appealed.

Some reference is made in brief to the Bulk Sales Act, No. 270 of 1926, as being of interest here, but that act clearly has no application. Denekamp v. Heisler, 12 La. App. 471, 126 So. 447; Item Company, Ltd., v. National Dyers & Cleaners, Ltd., 15 La. App. 108, 130 So. 879.

As we see it, only an issue of fact is involved, which, after a reading of the record, we are convinced has been correctly determined below.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

On Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

Upon reconsideration of this case we have concluded to disallow an item of credit of $SS. which was recognized in our former decree. Consequently our former decree must be amended so as to read as follows:

It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that there be judgment herein, in favor of the plaintiff, Paul Thibodeaux, and against the defendant, R. O. Landry, in the full sum of $400, with 8 per cent, per annum interest thereon from July 7, 1930, until paid, and an additional 10 per cent, as attorney’s fees on the principal and interest thereof, subject to a credit of $49.50.

Former decree amended.
EXHIBIT 11


                ORION CAPITAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                               (UNAUDITED)

              (000s omitted-except for per common share data)

                                               Three Months Ended March 31,
                                               ----------------------------
                                                     1997        1996
                                                     ----        ----
Computation of weighted average
  number of common and equivalent
  shares outstanding:

PRIMARY -

  Weighted average number of shares
    outstanding .............................       13,652      13,815
  Dilutive effect of stock options and stock
    awards ..................................          247         182 
                                                   -------     -------
  Weighted average number of common and 
    equivalent shares .......................       13,899      13,997 
                                                   =======     =======      

  Net earnings attributable to common 
    stockholders ............................      $29,478     $17,887 
                                                   =======     =======

  Net earnings per common share .............      $  2.12     $  1.28         
                                                   =======     =======

FULLY DILUTED -

  Weighted average number of shares
    outstanding .............................       13,652      13,815 
  Dilutive effect of stock options and stock 
    awards ..................................          247         182 
                                                   -------     -------
  Weighted average number of common and 
    equivalent shares .......................       13,899      13,997 
                                                   =======     =======

   Net earnings attributable to common
    stockholders ............................      $29,478     $17,887 
                                                   =======     =======

  Net earnings per common share .............      $  2.12     $  1.28 
                                                   =======     =======

 


                                     Page 24
----

| (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 result of operations of the      Company. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      November 20, 2008 |   /s/      Ronald A. Duncan |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                         | Ronald A.      Duncan            |
|                         | Chief      Executive Officer     |
|                         | GCI,      Inc.                   |

----
#### In the Matter of the Application, etc., of William H. Hodgins, Respondent, v. Theodore A. Bingham, as Police Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New York, Appellant.

Motion for resettlement of order granted, without costs. Present —Hirschberg, P. J., Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6046 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6046

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow passenger ferry boats 
          in nonurbanized areas to qualify for certain grants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2021

  Mr. Rouzer (for himself, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Murphy of 
  North Carolina, and Mr. Butterfield) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow passenger ferry boats 
          in nonurbanized areas to qualify for certain grants.

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

SECTION 1. PASSENGER FERRY GRANTS.

    Section 5307(h) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Passenger ferries in nonurbanized areas.--
        Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2) and subsection (a), the 
        Secretary may also make grants under this subsection to 
        passenger ferry projects in nonurbanized areas regardless of 
        population size. Such grants shall be subject to the 
        requirements of section 5311 of title 49, United States 
        Code.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 (the Report) of Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. (the Company) for the nine months ended September 30, 2004, I, Gary N. Thompson, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; provided, however, that the Company did not obtain a review of the
unaudited interim financial statements in the Report by an independent registered public accounting firm as indicated in Part I, Item 1 of the Report; 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/ Gary N. Thompson                        
|Gary N. Thompson                            
|Title: Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|                                            
|Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc.         
|                                            
|Date: November 9, 2004                      



39