alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE ex rel. Claude L. MERCHANT et ux. v. VERNON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD (Miss Pearle PEACE, Intervener).

No. 1791.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 11, 1938.

Olin D. Moore and J. Reuel Boone, both of Many, for plaintiff.

Edwin M. Fraserv of Many, for defendant.

Woosley & Cavanaugh, of Leesville, for intervener.

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons given in State ex rel. Austin L. Temple v. Vernon Parish School Board, Intervention of Miss Pearle Peace, La.App., 178 So. 176, this day decided, the motion to dismiss or remand the case is overruled; and it is ordered.that the judgment dismissing the intervention of Miss Pearle Peace is affirmed at her costs; and that the judgment in favor of relator and against the defendant school board is affirmed at the cost of defendant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-2166

ABRAHAM THOMPSON, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; ROSS R.

BACCARNIRI,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA02-2735-JFM)

Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 30, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abraham Thompson, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Abraham Thompson, III, appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Thompson v. U.S.

Postal Service, No. CA-02-2735-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 16, 2002). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Roger M. Wessels, appellant.

176 N. W. 2d 682

Filed April 24, 1970.

No. 37438.

Kelly & Kelly, for appellant.

Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General, and James J. Duggan, for appellee.

Heard before White, C. J., Carter, Spencer, Boslaugh, Smith, McCown, and Newton, JJ.

McCown, J.

The defendant was found guilty of breaking and entering by a jury, and sentenced to 5 years in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex. Issues on appeal involve the admission of a pair of gloves into evidence and sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

A general store in Lushton, York County, Nebraska, was burglarized on the night of January 28, 1969. Property taken consisted of change from the cash register, cigarettes, one carton of cigarette lighters, a radio, two wrist watches, and one or two pairs of brown cotton jersey gloves. The owner of the store identified exhibit 6, a pair of gloves, as the kind that he had in the store, *475but he could not definitely identify them as the gloves missing from the store. The defendant now contends that property which cannot be positively identified by an owner should not be admitted into evidence against an accused charged with burglary.

If the evidence of the owner was the only evidence relied on, defendant’s position might be well taken. In this case, however, an individual who accompanied the defendant to the scene of the crime as either an accomplice or an onlooker testified. He said that upon the defendant’s return to the car parked near the store on the night of the burglary, the defendant had several items of property with him, including exhibit 6. He had not had them when he left the car. The witness identified exhibit 6 as the gloves given to him by the defendant at that time. The gloves were traced through the witness to the sheriff’s office and introduced during the direct testimony of the deputy sheriff. There was ample foundation to support the admission of exhibit 6.

The trial court’s determination of the admissibility of demonstrative evidence will not be overturned except for a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Huffman, 181 Neb. 356, 148 N. W. 2d 321.

The defendant’s remaining assignment of error going to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction is untenable. The same witness previously mentioned furnished virtually a step-by-step eyewitness account of the plannnig and execution of the burglary. It was more than sufficient.

The judgment of the district court was correct and is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Order entered June 20, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00575-CR

No. 05-19-00576-CR

JEREMY CARDELL MINOR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F14-76288-P & F14-71793-P

ORDER

Before the Court is Official Court Reporter Lisabeth Kellett’s June 17, 2019 request for 

an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and ORDER the 

reporter’s record filed within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0494

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

DAVID ALAN SPAGNOLO, 

Defendant and Appellant, 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension 

of time, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 31, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 22 2021

12/22/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0494
#### The Witkop & Holmes Company, Respondent, v. Ervin G. Boyce, Appellant.

— Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred.
#### STATE ex rel. Sam JOHNSON et ux. v. VERNON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD (Miss Pearle PEACE, Intervener).

No. 1789.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 11, 1938.

Olin D. Moore and J. Reüel Boone, both, of Many, for plaintiff.

Edwin M. Fraser, of Many, for defendant.

Woosley & Cavanaugh, of Leesville, for intervener.

DORE, Judge.

. For the reasons given in State ex rel. Austin L. Temple v. Vernon Parish School Board, Intervention of Miss Pearle Peace, La.App., 178 So. 176, this day decided, the motion to dismiss or remand the case is overruled; and it is ordered that the judgment dismissing the intervention of Miss Pearle Peace is affirmed at her costs; and that the judgment in favor of relator and against the defendant school board is affirmed at the cost of defendant.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00267-CV

In re People Thomas H. Hollowell

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM LLANO COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A document entitled “Habeas Corpus to Third Court of Criminal Appeals,

Austin Texas” was filed with this Court requesting that we compel the release of “People Thomas

H. Howard” from incarceration. It later lists as the detainee “People Thomas H. Hollowell” and

asks for Hollowell’s release. This appears to be an application for writ of habeas corpus filed for the

first time in this court of appeals rather than an appeal of a ruling on an application for writ of habeas

corpus filed in a trial court. 

We lack jurisdiction over this application. The courts of appeals in Texas lack

jurisdiction to consider a post-conviction application for the writ of habeas corpus in felony cases

and in cases in which the applicant seeks relief from an order or judgment of conviction ordering

community supervision. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 11.07, 11.072; see also Ex parte Williams,

561 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196-97

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding). We also lack original jurisdiction over

habeas applications complaining of confinement on a misdemeanor charge. See Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. art. 11.09.
Lacking jurisdiction, we must and do dismiss this application.

 

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field

Filed: June 24, 2015

2
#### Joel H. TUCKER, Plaintiff in Error, v. CITY OF SEBRING, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 7, 1935.

Fairfax T. Haskins, of Sebring, for plaintiff in error.

W. H. Nollman, of Sebring, and Huffaker & Edwards, of Bartow, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is a companion case to that of Hope-rich v. City of Sebring, 161 So. 275, in which opinion was filed at -this term of the court.

The judgment should be' affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion in that ease.

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and TERRELL, BUFORD, and DAYIS, JJ., concur.

ELLIS, J., concurs in the conclusion.

BROWN, J., concurs specially.

BROWN, Justice

(concurring).

I concur for the reasons stated in-my special concurring opinion in the companion case of Hoperich v. City of Sebring, 161 So. 275.
#### Benjamin Stern, Appellant, v. Sara Stern, as Executrix, etc., of Simon H. Stern, Deceased, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 11281]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 5.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1766-DR), dated 06/08/2008.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes.                    

*Incident Period:*                         05/30/2008 through 06/27/2008.                    

*Effective Date:*                         08/06/2008.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         08/07/2008.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Indiana, dated 06/08/2008, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

*Primary Counties:*

Adams, Benton, Fountain, Gibson, Hendricks, Jay, Marion, Montgomery, Posey, Switzerland, Wabash.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-18912 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6035

DEXTER DRAKE COFFIN, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

L.H. BREZEE; EUNICE BELVIN; A. D. MATHEWS,

Sheriff; EMSA CORRECTIONAL CARE,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

UNKNOWN OR IDENTIFIED MEDICAL EMPLOYEES OF

HENRICO COUNTY JAIL; HENRICO COUNTY JAIL,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-95-260-R)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Dexter Drake Coffin, III, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Paul Falzone,

David Wayne Robinson, HIRSCHLER, FLEISCHER, WEINBERG, COX & ALLEN,

Richmond, Virginia; Carlyle Randoph Wimbish, III, Marvin Pierce

Rucker, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Coffin v. Brezee, No. CA-95-260-R (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 1995).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### MAYBENO v. BATTAGLIA et al.

No. 18459.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 2, 1946.

Robert R. Ramos and Paul J. Maybeno, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

Ed J. De Verges, A. Lambert Voorhies and Peter G. Charbohnet, all of New Orleans, for appellants.

PER CURIAM.

Mrs. Julia Barlotta, wife of Looluca Ac-comando, the testamentary executrix of the Succession of Vincenzo Battaglia, has appealed from the judgment herein ren- ■ dered in favor of plaintiff, Paul Joseph Maybeno, and the latter has moved to dismiss her appeal.

It appears from the record that any and all rights which appellant may have had for a reversal of the judgment have been fully disposed of by the judgment of this court handed down on May 27th, 1946, La. App., 26 So.2d 315, on the appeal of I. B. Rennyson, acting as agent for Mrs. Ac-comando, the present appellant. This judgment was approved by the Supreme Court on November 12th, 1946, wherein that court denied Mr. Rennyson's application for certiorari or writ of review, and the matter is now final.

For this reason, it clearly appears that the questions which might have been presented by the appellant, Mrs. Accomando, are now moot.

The motion of appellee is, therefore, sustained and the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>


                                     EXHIBIT 24.4
                                           

                                  POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                           
KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, that the undersigned, Darryl J. Yea, constitutes
and appoints Yehoram Uziel and Robert E. Kassel, or either of them, his true and
lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, each with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB, Annual Report of Soligen Technologies,
Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1997, and any
amendments or supplements thereto, and to file this Power of Attorney and the
Form 10-KSB, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection
therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Superintendent of the
British Columbia Securities Commission, the American Stock Exchange and the
Vancouver Stock Exchange, granting unto each of said attorneys-in-fact and
agents full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all
intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that each of said attorneys-fact and agents, or his substitutes,
may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

     Dated this   25th  day of June 1997
              ----------


Signature




/s/ DARRYL J. YEA
----------------------------------------
Darryl J. Yea, Director
#### Ex Parte Ralph O. Lucas.

No. 24824.

April 5, 1950.

Relator represented himself.

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

ORDER REFUSING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

Per Curiam:

Insofar as the attached petition for the writ of habeas corpus seeks redress because of the failure of the trial court to appoint counsel for relator, in the two cases mentioned, the records of this court reflect that in one of the cases relator was represented by counsel, while the other is not of such nature or character as would require the appointment of counsel in order to preserve due process.

Other allegations in the petition attempting to assert a denial of due process are so vague, indefinite, and uncertain as to be meaningless.

*486For the reasons stated, the petition for the writ of habeas corpus is refused.
Exhibit 11
<TABLE>
                   ORION CAPITAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)


<CAPTION>

                                                       Three Months Ended             Nine Months Ended
                                                          September 30,                 September 30,
                                                       -------------------         ---------------------
(In thousands, except per share data)                   1998         1997            1998          1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                  <C>          <C>              <C>          <C>    
Basic:
Weighted average number of shares outstanding         27,215        27,335           27,357       27,313
                                                     =====================         =====================
                                                             
Net earnings attributable to common stockholders     $ 2,308      $ 24,526         $ 82,655     $ 79,385
                                                     =====================         =====================
                                                              
Net earnings per basic common share                  $  0.08      $   0.90         $   3.02     $   2.91
                                                     =====================         =====================
Diluted:
Computation of weighted average number of
common and diluted equivalent shares
outstanding:-
   Weighted average number of shares outstanding      27,215        27,335           27,357       27,313
   Dilutive effect of stock options and stock awards     638           546              694          515
                                                     ---------------------         ---------------------
Weighted average number of common and
   diluted equivalent shares                          27,853        27,881           28,051       27,828
                                                     =====================          ====================
                                                         
Net earnings attributable to common stockholders     $ 2,308      $ 24,526          $ 82,655    $ 79,385
                                                     =====================          ====================
Net earnings per diluted common share                $  0.08      $   0.88          $   2.95    $   2.85
                                                     =====================          ====================
</TABLE>
Exhibit 33.2
                                 ------------


          ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA



The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A.
(collectively, the "Company") provides this platform-level assessment of
compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially
required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential
mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to
January 1, 2006) for which the Company provides trustee, securities
administration, paying agent or custodial services. The platform includes like
kind transactions for which the Company provided trustee, securities
administrator, paying agent or custodial services as a result of the Company's
acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s
corporate trust business, including structured finance agency and trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d), to the extent required by the related transaction agreements as to
any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii),
(iv), (4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the
following assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:

o  The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

o  The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

o  As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.


                                       1
<PAGE>


Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report with respect to the Company's foregoing
assessment of compliance.



      The Bank of New York                    The Bank of New York
      The Bank of New York Trust              The Bank of New York Trust
         Company, N.A.                           Company, N.A.


      /s/ Robert L. Griffin                   /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
      ---------------------------             ---------------------------
      Robert L. Griffin                       Patrick J. Tadie
      Authorized Signer                       Authorized Signer


March 1, 2007



                                       2