alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SCRUGGS v. V. FRANK LYNN CO., Inc., et al.

No. 6347.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 28, 1941.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 31, 1941.

Writ of Certiorari and Review Denied Feb. 2, 1942.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for appellants.

George W. Lester and G.- Allen Kimball, both of Monroe, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

This is a companion suit to No. 6346, decided by us this day, styled Edward Scruggs v. V. Frank Lynn Company, Incorporated, et al., 6 So.2d 86, and tried on the same record.

At the time of the accident Edward Scruggs was an unemancipated minor and it was before the disability of minority had been removed by the marriage of Edward Scruggs that the hospital and medical bills sued for herein by his father were incurred; therefore, the father of the minor was and is responsible for them. He *93prayed for judgment in the sum of $507.-75, itemized as follows:

> Peters’ Funeral Home (Ambulance service) $ 2.50

> St. Francis Sanitarium 94.00

> Dr. George Snellings (Professional services) 310.00

> Collens’ Pharmacy (Drugs) 1-25

> Dr. Nathan Gaston (Professional services) 100.00

Each of the above items of damage was proved on trial and there is no evidence to contradict the proof offered by plaintiff.

Defendants urge here that since the injured minor was entitled to compensation from his employer, the employer was liable for $250 of the medical and hospital bills; and that the minor was treated by Dr. George Snellings at the request .of the minor’s employer. Granting this to be true it cannot relieve defendants of their liability. They are liable for all damage caused by their negligence and the record shows that the plaintiff herein has been billed for the above amounts by the respective parties. Whatever rights exist as between the employer, the father of the injured minor and the doctors, hospitals, etc., can in no way relieve defendants of their liability.

The lower court awarded judgment for plaintiff as prayed for and we find no error in it. Therefore the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 670

To waive certain statutory time limitations with respect to the award of

military decorations in the case of the award of the Medal of Honor

to Marcelino Serna.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1995

Mr. COLEMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on National Security

A BILL

To waive certain statutory time limitations with respect to

the award of military decorations in the case of the

award of the Medal of Honor to Marcelino Serna.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the time limitations specified in section 3744(b) of

4 title 10, United States Code, shall not apply with respect

5 to the posthumous award of the Medal of Honor under

6 section 3741 of such title to the late Marcelino Serna of

7 El Paso, Texas, for acts of heroism performed while serv-
2

•HR 670 IH

1 ing as a private in the United States Army during World

2 War I.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 632 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                       October 3, 1996.
      Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
632) entitled ``An Act to enhance fairness in compensating owners of 
patents used by the United States.'', do pass with the following

                              AMENDMENTS:

(1)Page 2, line 8, strike out all after ``States'.'' down to and 
including ``Acts.'' in line 13 and insert: Notwithstanding the 
preceding sentences, unless the action has been pending for more than 
10 years from the time of filing to the time that the owner applies for 
such costs and fees, reasonable and entire compensation shall not 
include such costs and fees if the court finds that the position of the 
United Stated was substantially justified or that special circumstances 
make an award unjust.

(2)Page 2, line 17, strike out [January 1, 1995] and insert: the date 
of the enactment of this Act

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 632

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENTS
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 21

- 00088

- CV
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF Elaine Eisele ADAMS
From the 216th Judicial District Court , Gillespie County, Texas Trial Court No. 14997 Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 2, 2021
DI SMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
When the trial court clerk f iled a notification of late clerk’s record stating that Appellant
Duane Adams ha d failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk ’ s
record and that the appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee, we ordered Adams to provide written proof to this court by May 14, 2021 that either (1) the clerk ’ s fee for prep aring
the clerk’s record ha d been paid or arrangements ha d been made to pay the clerk ’ s fee; or (2) appellant wa s entitled to appeal without paying the clerk ’ s fee. We explained that if Adams failed to respond within the time provided, this appeal w ould be dismissed for want of prosecution. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution if clerk’s record is not filed due to appellant’s fault); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal of appeal if04

- 21

- 00088

- CV

- 2

- appellant fails to comply with an order of this court). Adams has failed to file a written response to our order. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
PER CURIAM
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DNS AUTO GLASS SHOP, LLC A/A/O 

SELENE WASHINGTON, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D21-1894

LT Case No. 2020-SC-004385

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM 

FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, 

AND STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Appellees. 

________________________________/

Opinion filed February 3, 2023

Nonfinal Appeal from the County

Court for Seminole County, 

James J. DeKleva, Judge.

Chad A. Barr, of Chad Barr Law, 

Altamonte Springs, for Appellant.

Kurt T. Koehler, of Cole, Scott & 

Kissane, P.A., Jacksonville, for 

Appellees. 
2

PER CURIAM. 

The trial court’s order transferring venue under section 47.122, Florida 

Statutes (2021), is affirmed. Based upon the transcript that Appellee 

submitted below of the deposition of its insured, who is a material witness,

the court did not abuse its discretion in granting Appellee’s motion to transfer 

venue. See Cohen v. Scarnato, 270 So. 3d 410, 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) 

(applying the abuse of discretion standard of review to a trial court’s order 

transferring venue under section 47.122).

We do, however, remand this case to the trial court with directions that 

the court amend its order to assess accrued costs against Appellee. See § 

47.191, Fla. Stat. (2021) (“No change of venue shall be granted except on 

condition that the movant, unless otherwise provided by the order of transfer, 

shall pay all costs that have accrued in the action including the required 

transfer fee.”). The amended order shall set forth a reasonable period of 

time for Appellee to pay these costs. 

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

LAMBERT, C.J., EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 22, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00366

- CR

Daniel James WEEMS

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR6570

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The State ’ s Motion for Leave to File Post

- Submission Supplemental Brief is hereby

GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED on the 22nd day of April , 201 4

.



### PER CURIA M

ATTESTED TO:

____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00248

- CR

LIONEL JAMES GONZALE Z

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 3763

- 16

- F

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered th is cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. June 21, 2018
**Exhibit 99.1**

**STATEMENT OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER OF PARADYNE NETWORKS, INC.****PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Paradyne Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sean E. Belanger, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

|                                                                                     |   |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ SEAN E. BELANGER                                                                     |   |   |        |
|                                                                                          |   |   |   |
| **Sean E. Belanger****Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer**Date: May 9, 2003 |   |   |   |
Correction to  Employment  Agreement,  by and between  Pulse  Microsystems,
Ltd.,  an  Ontario  corporation  (the   "Corporation"),   and  Tas  Tsonis  (the
"Executive").

     WHEREAS, Pulse and the Executive entered into an employment agreement dated
as of February 25, 1994 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS,  the  parties  have  discovered  an error in  Section  2(b) of the
Employment  Agreement  concerning  the amount of the bonus to be paid during the
First Renewal Term (as defined in the Employment Agreement); and

     WHEREAS, the parties desire to correct this error.

     NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed:

     1. Section 2(b) of the Employment Agreement,  as it now exists, is stricken
and instead is replaced by  corrected  Section  2(b)  reading in its entirety as
follows:

     First  Renewal  Option.  Subject to the  provisions of Section 2(d) hereof,
upon notice given in the manner provided herein not less than one hundred twenty
(120) days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term, the Executive may extend
the Initial  Term for an  additional  three (3) year period (the "First  Renewal
Term") upon the same terms and  conditions  (except the right to renew for three
(3) years) as set forth  herein  except that the bonus  provided  for in Section
5(b) of this Agreement  shall be 12.5% of the Company's  annual pre-tax  profits
(as defined in Paragraph  5(b)(iii)  hereof)  during the First Renewal Term. The
First  Renewal  Term shall  terminate  as of the close of business on the eighth
(8th) anniversary of the Effective Date.

     2. Except as herein  corrected,  the Employment  Agreement  remains in full
force and effect.

Dated:   November 4, 1997

                                              PULSE MICROSYSTEMS, LTD.


                                         By:  /s/Brian Goldberg
                                              -------------------------------
                                              Brian Goldberg, Vice President

                                              /s/Tas Tsonis
                                              -------------------------------
                                              Tas Tsonis

     Consented to:

     HIRSCH INTERNATIONAL CORP.

     By: /s/Henry Arnberg
         ----------------------------
         Henry Arnberg, President
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-88,371-02

EX P ARTE ANTHONY NG OZI OK ERE, App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. C-371-W011282- 1407341-A IN THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT F ROM TARRA NT COUNTY

Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1

. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag g ravated sexual assault of a disabled person and sentenc ed to twenty -five year s’ imprisonment. The Seventh Court of Appea ls aff

irmed his conviction. Oke re v. State , N o . 0 7

- 1 6

- 0 0 0 4 3 -CR (Tex. App.—Amar illo J uly 25, 2016)(not designated f or publication). A p p li c a nt c o nten d s th a

t h is appellate counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance beca use counsel failed to t i m ely notify Applicant that the Seventh Court of Appea ls aff irmed the trial court’s2

judgme nt. The trial court has enter ed fi n d i n g s of fac t and conclusions of law that Applicant was improperly denied the opportunity to seek discretionar y revie w. T h e t rial court rec ommends that relief be grante d. Ex parte W

ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We conclude that there was a brea kdown in the sy stem. Ex parte Riley , 193 S.W .3d 900, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We find, there fore , that Applicant is e ntitled to the opportunity to f ile an out-of-time petition for discretionar y revie w of t h e judgme nt of the Seventh Court of Appea ls in C au se No. 07-16-00043- CR that aff irmed his conviction in Cause No. 1407341D from the 37 1 s t District Court of Tarr ant County

. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionar y revie w with this Court within 30 day s of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues. Whil e this application was pending in the trial court, Applicant filed another application for writ of habea s corpus, challeng ing the merits of this conviction. Be cause this Court is g ranting Applicant an out-of-time petition for discretionar y revie w in this case , the claims raised in his other application are not yet ripe for reso l u t i o n . There fore , that application is dismiss ed. See Ex parte Torres , 943 S.W .2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Copies of this opinion shall be s e nt to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: August 22, 2018 Do not publish
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Louisiana Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, each of the undersigned, Lawrence J. LeBon, III, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John LeBlanc, Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer 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, 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: May 11, 2011 |  | By: |  | /s/ Lawrence J. LeBon, III                       
|                   |  |     |  | Lawrence J. LeBon, III                           
|                   |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer            
|                   |  |    
|Date: May 11, 2011 |  | By: |  | /s/ John LeBlanc                                 
|                   |  |     |  | John LeBlanc                                     
|                   |  |     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

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



31
Exhibit 32.1


                                WRITTEN STATEMENT
                                       OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

     The  undersigned  hereby  certify that, to the best of the knowledge of the
undersigned, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2003 filed by PHC,  Inc.  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the  information  contained  in the report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the issuer.



Date:  September 19, 2003              By:  /s/  Bruce A. Shear
                                                 Bruce A. Shear, President
                                                 and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  September 22, 2003              By:  /s/  Paula C. Wurts
                                                 Paula C. Wurts, Controller
                                                 and Chief Financial Officer
#### Vincenzo Grillo, Respondent, v. Rose Amelio, Appellant.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs, unless appellant perfect her appeal within five days and put the cause at the foot of the calendar for disposition at this term of court, in which case the motion is denied, without costs. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
#### Myron Combs, Respondent, v. Louis W. Emerson and Others, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of the Warrensburgh Water Company, Appellants.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 130108 & (31)(32) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan ANTONIO L. THOMAS and ANTONIO Robert P. Young, Jr. L. THOMAS ASSOCIATED, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Justices

v SC: 130108 COA: 266779 Wayne CC: 02-220633-CZ LA-VAN HAWKINS and URBAN CITY FOODS, LLC, Defendants-Appellees,

and

MELVIN BUTCH HOLLOWELL, Receiver-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of January 31, 2006, the Wayne Circuit Court was directed to reconsider
whether Melvin Butc h Hollowell had a c onflict of interest a nd to make findings addressing specified issues w ithin 35 days. On order of the Court, the Wayne Circuit Court’s findings of fact and law having been received and co nsidered, the application for leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Co urt. Plaintiff’s motion for immediate consideration of his motion to modify order is GRAN TED. Plaintiff’s motion to modify order is DENIED as moot. The December 21, 2005 order staying trial court proceedings is DISSOLVED.

s0328 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 31, 2006

Clerk
#### In the Matter of the Application of Charles E. McCarthy for License and Admission to Practice as an Official Examiner of Title.

Application granted.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40514 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISMELDO VENTURA-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

(M-95-CV-330)

January 23, 1998 Before GARWOOD, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. *
PER CURIAM: Ismeldo Ventura -Gutierrez, federal prisoner #65009-079, appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
He avers that the government breached the plea agreement by failing
to file a motion for downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. §1 Ventura-Gutierrez’s motion for appointment of counsel is

denied.
2 5K1.1 and that his counsel was ineffective in recommending he plead guilty. Ventura-Gutierrez also avers, for the first time in his reply brief, that the district court erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record and find no error. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the same reasons adopted by the district court. See United States v. Ventura-Gutierrez , No. M-95-CV-330 (S.D. Tex. March 31, 1997).

AFFIRMED 1
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30625 Summary Calendar

__________________ JOSEPH HAYES, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney General, State of Louisiana, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-30625
- - - - - - - - - - February 21, 1996 Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joseph Hayes appeals the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition because his fingerprints were not affixed to his bill of information and because the trial court admitted Xerox copies of his bill of information and fingerprints to prove his identity as the person charged in the information. To the extent that Hayes attempts to argue that his bill of information is defective, this is a new issue on appeal, and weNo. 95-30625 -2- will not consider it. See Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Also, because Hayes does not argue his sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument, he has abandoned it, and we will not address it. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the same reasons given by the district court. AFFIRMED.