alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SAMUEL STAMPING & ENAMELING CO. v. MONROE FURNITURE CO., LIMITED.

No. 5273.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Feb. 5, 1937.

Hudson, Potts & Bernstein and George M. Snellings, Jr., all of Monroe, for appellant.

S. E. Burgoyne, of Monroe, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Several errors of law and fact are assigned by appellant in support of its application for rehearing, none of which we think has sufficient merit to warrant favorable action thereon. Two errors of fact, secondary in importance, are assigned which are well founded. ' We shall now correct them. This may be done without a rehearing.

In stating the facts of the case, we said that plaintiff had sold and delivered to defendant 121 Clayback heaters, over which this contest in the main is waged. The correct number is 127. However, we found as an ultimate fact that 70 of the heaters had been returned and therefore held defendant responsible for the price of the other. 57 which, under the testimony, we held had not been returned to plaintiff. We also accredited to defendant the introduction in evidence of “a detailed statement disclosing the number of heaters retailed by it and the. names of the companies to whom same were sold by wholesale, aggregating 89, together with itemized charges in each instance covering expense of connecting, disconnecting and reconnecting, and drayage, on which there is also listed, — -“heaters still out to be returned to factory,’ 38 all told, and the names of the various purchasers thereof.” The document was introduced by plaintiff. The probative weight of this statement we held was favorable to plaintiff’s contention that all the heaters had not been shipped back to it because, even for the 38 which were outstanding, no charge against plaintiff was made for connecting, disconnecting, drayage, etc., as was doné with the other 89 of them. Defendant’s vice president admits that this statement was made up by him or by his authority and that it correctly reflects the facts of the situation then existing. The. statement having been *218properly admitted as evidence in the case, regardless of by whom, was entitled to he weighed and considered for or against either side.

Rehearing refused.
Order entered November 4, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01504-CV

IN RE RAMIRO CHAPA, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F04-36350-P

ORDER

Before Justices Moseley, Lang-Miers, and Evans

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of 

habeas corpus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of the opinion and order to Ramiro Chapa, No. 

84564-079, FCI Forrest City Medium, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 3000, Forrest 

City, Arkansas 72336.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of relator’s petition, this Court’s opinion, and this 

order to the Presiding Judge of the 203rd Judicial District Court and to Michael Casillas, 

Appellate-Chief, Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**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 thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, JosephA. Molino, Jr., Principal Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
|                         | /s/ JOSEPH A. MOLINO, JR.     |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                         | Joseph A. Molino, Jr.    |
| Date: November 13, 2009 | *Principal Financial Officer* |

 

1

----
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gas
Transmission Northwest Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, I, Thomas E. Legro, Vice President and Controller of Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) | such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|             |  |                              
|------------ |  | -----------------------------
|May 11, 2004 |  | /s/ Thomas E. Legro          
|             |  | Thomas E. Legro              
|             |  | Vice President and Controller



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation and will be retained by Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EXHIBIT 12



GAS TRANSMISSION NORTHWEST CORPORATION

EXHIBIT 12 - RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

($ in millions)



|                                   |  |                          |      |               |   |     
|---------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ | ---- | ------------- | - | ----
|                                   |  | For the Six Months Ended
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges |  | June 30, 2004            |      | June 30, 2003
|Earnings                           |  |                          |      |               |   |     
|Net income                         |  | $                        | 29.1 |               | $ | 29.3
|Adjustments:                       |  |                          |      |               |   |     
|Income taxes                       |  |                          | 18.5 |               |   | 19.0
|Fixed charges (as below)           |  |                          | 19.4 |               |   | 20.2
|                                   |  |                          |      |               |   |     
|Total adjusted earnings            |  | $                        | 67.0 |               | $ | 68.5
|                                   |  |                          |      |               |   |     
|Fixed charges:                     |  |                          |      |               |   |     
|Net interest expense               |  | $                        | 19.0 |               | $ | 19.8
|Adjustments:                       |  |                          |      |               |   |     
|Interest component of rents        |  |                          | 0.1  |               |   | 0.2 
|AFUDC debt                         |  |                          | 0.2  |               |   | 0.2 
|                                   |  |                          |      |               |   |     
|Total fixed charges                |  | $                        | 19.4 |               | $ | 20.2
|                                   |  |                          |      |               |   |     
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |  |                          | 3.5  |               |   | 3.4 
|                                   |  |                          |      |               |   |
(August 13, 1998)

#### Lawrence G. Altman et al., Appellants, v Daniel P. Barriero et al., Respondents.

[676 NYS2d 578]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered October 9, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate plaintiffs’ eighth cause of action to the extent that it alleges that money was paid by the limited partnership to defendants DM Management, Inc. and DM Development, Inc. for services that were never rendered, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In this action for, *inter alia,*fraud and breach of fiduciary duty brought by limited partners in a real estate investment venture against the general partners, the motion court correctly. determined that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendants’ showing that prior to the auction at which defendants purchased a number of the subject condominium units at a price below the original offering price, no offer had been made to buy all of the units at any price, let alone at a price that would have been more lucrative to the venture than the auction. Plaintiffs’ other claims were properly dismissed as precluded by the disclosures set forth in the offering memorandum.

However, while we agree with the IAS Court that the partnership was participating in a risky venture in a potentially volatile real estate market and that plaintiffs received adequate disclosure of the potential financial risks and conflicts of interest, an issue of fact is presented with regard to plaintiffs’ claim that payments were made by the partnership to the DM entities for services that were never rendered. The affidavit of defendant Mashburn, one of the two general partners, which states that the partnership retained DM Development to refurbish the properties and that both the interior and exterior of the motel were repainted, that the tennis courts and pools were redone, and that electrical work, roof repair, redecoration of the units and a complete landscaping of both properties were done, is directly contradicted by the affidavit of plaintiff Daubert, who visited both of the partnership properties in the summers of 1990 and 1991 and found the Watch Hill property in disrepair. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.
#### Wilh. WILHELMSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WIEGAND MARIONNEAUX LBR. CO., Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16699.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 16, 1938.

Cahn & Cahn,'of New Orleans, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

In this matter counsel representing both parties have filed an agreement in this court in which it is conceded that the issue presented by this appeal is controlled by the decision in Lykes Bros. Ripley Steamship Company, Inc., v. Wiegand Marionneaux Lumber Company, Inc., et al., 185 La. 1085, 171 So. 453, and that as a result of the opinion in that case the judgment appealed from maintaining the exceptions of misjoin-der of parties defendant should be reversed and the case remanded to the court, a qua, for further proceedings according to law.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is annulled, avoided and reversed, and it is now ordered that this cause be remanded to the civil district court for the parish of Orleans for further proceedings according to law.

Reversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       2,821,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,395,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   470,000
<INVENTORY>                                 17,692,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,509,000
<PP&E>                                      75,522,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              28,112,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,076,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,477,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     8,494,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  62,408,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                93,076,000
<SALES>                                     64,292,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            64,292,000
<CGS>                                       48,319,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               48,319,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,563,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             290,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,087,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   823,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,264,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,264,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.67
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Taras Leon WYNNE, aka, et al., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-16243.

D.C. No. CV-98-02229-LKK, CR-95-0007-LKK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.*

Decided March 20, 2003.

Before SKOPIL, FERGUSON, and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Taras Leon Wynne appeals the district court’s denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence for possession of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Because his notice of appeal was not timely, we lack jurisdiction over Wynne’s appeal.

The district court filed an order denying Wynne’s motion to vacate on August 6, 1999, but did not serve Wynne with the *237order. The district court clerk sent a copy of the order to Wynne on March 13, 2001. Wynne filed a motion for relief from judgment on May 31, 2001, more than two and a half months after he was served with the order. The district court vacated the order and reentered it on June 14, 2001, and Wynne filed his notice of appeal on July 12, 2001.

The notice of appeal was late. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) governs the district court’s power to reopen the time to file a notice of appeal. Wynne did not comply with Rule 4(a)(6)(A), which requires that “the motion [be] filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is entered or within 7 days after the moving party receives notice of the entry, whichever is earlier.” Wynne filed his motion for relief from judgment 663 days after the order was entered, and two and a half months after he received notice of the entry.

The district court thus abused its discretion in vacating the order and reentering it to allow the filing of a notice of appeal. “Once the 180-day period has expired, a district court cannot rely on the one-time practice of vacating the judgment and reentering the same judgment in order to create a new appeal period.” *Mitchell v. Burt Vetterlein & Bushnell PC (In re*Stein), 197 F.3d 421, 425 (9th Cir.2000) (as amended) (quotations omitted). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rules 4(a) and 77(d) “form a tessellated scheme,” and “a district court may not vacate its earlier judgment to avoid the statutorily mandated maimer in which an appellant must file a proper notice of appeal.” *Id.*at 425-26 (quotations and alterations omitted).

Because the notice of appeal was not timely, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. *See Nguyen v. Southwest Leasing and Rental, Inc.,*282 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2002).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 612 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 612

  To amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to include certain 
                  communities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2021

 Mr. Stanton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to include certain 
                  communities, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Downwinders Parity Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION UNDER THE RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION ACT.

    Section 4(b)(1) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 
U.S.C. 2210 note; Public Law 101-426) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) by striking ``that portion of''; and
                    (B) by striking ``that consists of townships 13 
                through 16 at ranges 63 through 71''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``all acreage in any 
        county all or part of which is located in'' before ``that 
        part''.

SEC. 3. REPORT.

    Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Attorney General shall submit to the relevant committees of the House 
of Representatives and of the Senate a report that outlines efforts to 
educate and conduct outreach to persons made newly eligible for 
benefits under the amendments made by section 2 of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Daniel Ramiriz v. State.

No. 24920.

October 25, 1950.

*Mrs. Mae M. Ament*and *J. C. Epperson,*Alpine, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated, with a penalty of two years in the state penitentiary. The evidence will sustain the conviction.

Bill of Exception No. 1 complains of jury misconduct, after they retired to deliberate upon their verdict, in that they discussed and considered other indictments and complaints against this defendant and other convictions of this defendant in arriving at the punishment to be inflicted upon him. This was contrary to the instruction given by the court. Such evidence was admitted as going to the weight of the testimony of appellant in his own behalf. On motion for new trial it was shown that the jury had considered former convictions for other of*207fenses in arriving at their verdict and assessing the punishment at two years in the penitentiary.

The state’s attorney, in his brief, says: “It appears that the bill is well founded, the testimony seeming to show that the jury immediately found the appellant guilty and when they went to assess the punishment they discussed and considered the testimony introduced about prior convictions not alleged in the indictment.” This is tantamount to confession of error on the part of the state, which we find to be well founded.

Because of misconduct of the jury the judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded.
EXHIBIT 12


PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION, NORTHWEST
CORPORATION


SEC FILINGFORM 10-QThird Quarter 2002


EXHIBIT 12RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
FIXED CHARGES





For the Nine Months EndedRatio of earnings to Fixed Charges

2002

2001EarningsNet income

$
49.7

$
56.4Adjustments:Income taxes


29.5


28.8Fixed charges (as below)


28.8


29.2Total adjusted earnings

$
108.0

$
114.4Fixed charges:Net interest expense

$
25.9

$
28.6Adjustments:Interest component of rents


0.3


0.3AFUDC debt


2.6


0.3Total fixed charges

$
28.8

$
29.2Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


3.7


3.9
EX-10.1



 EXHIBIT 10.1 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

AMENDED AND RESTATED 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS
FIRST AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”), dated as of April 23, 2014 (the “Effective Date”), amends that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, effective as of January 1, 2011 (the “Agreement”), by and
between VASCO Data Security International, Inc., a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), and T. Kendall Hunt (“Employee”). Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to
such terms in the Agreement. 
 RECITALS 

WHEREAS, the Company and Employee are party to that certain Letter Agreement, dated as of February 15, 2011 (the “Letter
Agreement”), which provides for the terms and conditions applicable to Employee’s assignment to work in Switzerland; 

WHEREAS, the Assignment Term (as defined in the Letter Agreement) expires at the end of the Employment Period; 

WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to amend the Agreement and the Letter Agreement in order to extend the term of the Employment
Period and the Assignment Term, as applicable; 
 WHEREAS, Section 6.10 of the Agreement permits the amendment of the Agreement
with the written consent of the Company and Employee; and 
 WHEREAS, extending the term of the Employment Period will extend the
term of the Assignment Term. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the terms and conditions hereinafter set
forth, the mutual benefits to be gained by the performance thereof, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and accepted, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

AGREEMENT 
  

	1.	Section 1.1 of the Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

 “Unless
earlier terminated as provided in this Agreement, the term of Executive’s employment under this Agreement (the “Employment Period”) shall commence on the Effective Date and continue until the fourth anniversary of such
date.” 
  

	2.	In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 [Signature
Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed by a duly
authorized officer thereof, and Employee has hereunto set his hand, all as of the Effective Date. 
 VASCO DATA SECURITY INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

 

			
	By:	 	 /s/ John N. Fox

	Name:	 	John N. Fox
	Its:	 	Compensation Committee Chairman
	
	     /s/ T. Kendall Hunt

	T. Kendall Hunt