alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
18524.

#### Ulmer *v.*State Highway Department of Georgia *et al.*

Argued Maroi-i 8, 1954

Decided April 12, 1954.

*Bloch, Hall, Groover & Hawkins, B. G. Dickerson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, C. Winton Adams, A. J. Little, B. Lamar Tillman,*contra.

Head, Justice.

In the present case, prior to a hearing by the assessors to fix the value of the property sought to be condemned for highway purposes, the County of Lowndes and the condemnee entered into a written contract, wherein it was agreed, in consideration of certain acts by the county, such as moving a house from the right-of-way, relocation of certain water lines, and other items, that the assessors might find only the value of the land and no amounts for consequential damages or consequential benefits. Subsequently an award was made by the assessors fixing the value of the land taken, and an appeal was entered. The condemnee seeks by an action for declaratory judgment to have a final judgment entered by the court for the value of the land as fixed by the assessors, on the theory that the contract converted the statutory condemnation into an arbitration under the Code, Chapter 7-2. She prayed that the appeal be stayed by injunction until the rights of the parties are determined. *Held:*

1. “A petition seeking a declaratory judgment is not per se an equitable action *(Felton*v. *Chandler,*201 *Ga.*347, 39 S. E. 2d 654), nor is it converted into an equitable action merely because the court may grant a temporaiy restraining order to ‘maintain the status’ pending an adjudication with ‘respect to rights, status and other legal relations.’ Declaratory Judgments Act (Ga. L. 1945, p. 137; Code, Ann. Supp., § 110-1102); *Milwaukee Mechanics’ Insurance Co.*v. *Davis,*204 *Ga.*67 (48 S. E. 2d 876); *Findley*v. *City of Vidalia,*204 *Ga.*279 (49 S. E. 2d 658).” *Georgia Casualty & Surety Co.*v. *Turner,*208 *Ga.*782 (60 S. E. 2d 771).

2. The plaintiff in error sought a declaration of rights pursuant to a contract. Jurisdiction of the cause is not conferred on this court because she sought to restrain a trial of the appeal in the condemnation case until the prayers of her petition for a declaration of rights could be heard.

*Transferred to the Court of Appeals.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Willie Thomas Bates v. State.

No. 25065.

January 3, 1951.

*Thomas and Thomas,*Big Spring, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Under an indictment charging assault with intent to murder with malice, appellant was convicted of assault with intent to murder without malice, with punishment assessed at one year and one day in the penitentiary.

A statement of the facts is. not deemed called for. It is sufficient to say that the testimony raised the issue of self-defense. The trial court so recognized, and applied that defense by the following charge:

> “Now if you believe that the defendant committed an assault as a means of self defense, believing at the time that he was in danger of losing his life or of serious bodily injury, at the hands of Anderson Davis, Jr. then you will acquit the defendant of any and all offenses and say by your verdict, not guilty.”

It is apparent that this charge does not submit the doctrine of reasonable doubt in connection with self-defense and, in not so doing, is erroneous. 22 Tex. Jur., Homicide, Sec. 281, p. 1014; Milam v. State, 109 Tex. Cr. R. 85, 3 S. W. 2d 97; Thomp*335son v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 35, 288 S. W. 464; Castle v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 593, 209 S. W. 416.

Appellant reserved a proper exception to the charge for the error mentioned.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99-B

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
 TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
 ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report
 of Otter Tail Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
 ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
 the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin G. Moug, Chief Financial Officer
 and Treasurer 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.



| | /s/ Kevin G. Moug
Kevin G. MougChief Financial Officer and TreasurerNovember 14, 2002
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2016

Order 

September 9, 2016

150643(106)(108)(111)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

BOBAN TEMELKOSKI,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 150643

COA: 313670

Wayne CC: 94-000424-FH

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the separate motions of the Law Professors and the 

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers et al. to file briefs amicus curiae are 

GRANTED. The amicus briefs submitted by those entities on September 2, 2016, are

accepted for filing. On further order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendantappellant to file a reply in excess of the page limit restriction is GRANTED. The 16-

page reply submitted on September 7, 2016, is accepted for filing.
**Exhibit
      23.2**







**Consent
        of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
  We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
        on Form
        S-8 (Nos. 333-74197, 333-86728 and 333-124960) (pertaining to the 1995 Amended
        and Restated Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, the 1998 Non-Executive
        Employee Stock Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan and the 2004 Stock
        Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-95361,
        333-33986, 333-37630, 333-45818, 333-49628, 333-59346, 333-63514, 333-99559,
        333-99673, 333-106420, 333-110729, 333-112611, 333-124959, 333-124961,
        333-128497 and 333-129713) of our reports dated January 31, 2006 with respect
        to
        the financial statements of Armour of America, Inc. and March 10, 2006 with
        respect to the financial statements of IES Interactive Training, Inc. for
        the
        year ended December 31, 2005 referred to in Arotech Corporation’s Annual Report
        on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2005.
  
 /s/
        Stark Winter
        Schenkein & Co., LLP
 Stark
        Winter Schenkein & Co., LLP
 
 
 
 Denver,
        Colorado
 June
        15,
        2006
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 160 (Monday, August 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 48212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18980]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notices

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

Date and Time: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 10 a.m.

Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Status: This meeting will be closed to the public.

Items To Be Discussed: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g. 
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, 
U.S.C. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings 
or arbitration. Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters 
affecting a particular employee.

Person to Contact for Information: Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-18980 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
#### SABATHIER v. ELLERMAN.

No. 16406.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 11, 1937.

John J. Wingrave, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Montgomery & Montgomery, of New Orleans, for appellee.

McCALEB, Judge.

This matter was set down for argument on November 20, 1936. When the case was called, counsel .on both sides informed us that the transcript was incomplete due to the untimely death of Mr. Henry J. Gassie, formerly stenographer in Division C of the Civil District Court, and upon this showing the case was ordered to be continued indefinitely.

On December 29, 1936, counsel for plaintiff and appellant filed a motion to remand the case to be tried de novo in the Civil District Court because the stenographer’s notes, taken by Mr. Gassie when the trial was had below, could not be located or transcribed. There can be no doubt that we are unable to determine the correctness of the judgment below where the transcript, as in the present case, is incomplete.

We have held in the case of Barnes v. American Can Co., No. 10,066 [See Louisiana and Southern Digest], that “When appellant is unable to complete the transcript of appeal, because of - the death of the stenographer who reported the case in the trial court, upon application to this court the judgment appealed from will be. reversed and the case remanded for a new trial;”

Inasmuch as the facts respecting the death of Mr. Gassie are practically identical with the facts existing in the above-cited case, we are bound, in the interest of justice, to reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new trial.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Civil District Court in this. cause, rendered on February 17, 1936, and signed on February 21, 1936, is reversed, and it is now ordered that the case be remanded for a new trial and further proceedings according to law and consistent with the views herein expressed.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Ex Parte Rudalph Martinez.

No. 26,038.

October 15, 1952.

Hon. O. L. Parish, Judge Presiding.

*William C. McDonald,*San Angelo, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

Appellant, having been arrested for murder and the district court having refused to set bail, sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the District Judge of the 119th Judicial District in order that he might be admitted to bail. At the hearing of said writ, he was refused bail and remanded to custody. From that judgment he has appealed to this court.

After a careful consideration of the record, it is our opinion that appellant is entitled to bail, and we have fixed the amount of his bail in the sum of $5,000. The judgment will be set aside, and the appellant will be admitted to bail and released from custody, upon the execution by him of a bond in the sum of $5,000, with good and sufficient sureties, conditioned as the law directs.

Ordered accordingly.
#### TRASCHER v. JOHNSON.

No. 16232.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 7, 1935.

Harold J. Moore, of New Orleans, for appellant.

R. A. Dowling, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The basis of the motion to dismiss' is the alleged want of jurisdiction ratione materias in this court to hear and determine this appeal because of the alleged fact that the amount in controversy is in excess of $2,000, the maximum jurisdiction of this court in moneyed demands.

The record indicates that this appeal was taken by plaintiff from a judgment dismissing his suit for damages for slander. It is true that in, the prayer of the petition the plaintiff fixes his damages in the sum of $25,000, but since under the jurisprudence of this state no award of damages, upon a similar cause of action, has ever been approved in excess of the sum of $2,000, the maximum limit of our jurisdiction, we are of the opinion that the demand of the plaintiff in this case is inflated, and that the real amount in controversy is well within our jurisdiction. See Lebert v. Daily States Pub. Co. et al., 123 La. 594, 49 So. 206, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 726, 131 Am. St. Rep. 356; Bache v. Stoltz, 16 La. App. 524, 134 So. 112.

The motion to dismiss will be denied.

Motion denied.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 163 (Thursday, August 21, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 49490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19406]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,227]


Plastech Engineered Products, Inc., Fowlerville Division, 
Currently Known as JCIM, LLC, Fowlerville, MI; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance on November 16, 2007, applicable to workers 
of Plastech Engineered Products, Inc., Fowlerville Division, 
Fowlerville, Michigan. The notice was published in the Federal Register 
on December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69710).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of injection molded automotive plastic parts.
    New information shows that as the result of a change in ownership 
on July 1, 2008, Plastech Engineered Products, Inc., Fowlerville 
Division, Fowlerville, Michigan, is currently known as JCIM, LLC.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to 
include workers of the subject firm whose Unemployment Insurance (UI) 
wages are reported under the successor firm, JCIM, LLC.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-62,227 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Plastech Engineered Products, Inc., Fowlerville 
Division, currently known as JCIM, LLC, Fowlerville, Michigan, who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
September 17, 2006, through November 16, 2009, are eligible to apply 
for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 
1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade 
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of August 2008.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-19406 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### GPA-I, LP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-5115.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: May 9, 2001.

Before LOURIE and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### Lillian Frances DANCE v. Kenneth K. GAGE et al.

No. 2085.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 4, 1940.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1940.

Cline, Thompson, Lawes & Cavanaugh, of Lake Charles, for appellant.

McCoy & King, of Lake Charles, for ap-pellee.

OTT, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the case of Mary Hudgins v. Kenneth K. Gage et al., La.App., 194 So. 105, this day decided, it is ordered that the judgment in this case be and the same is affirmed at the cost of the appellant in both courts.
#### LEDAY v. LAKE CHARLES PIPE & SUPPLY CO., Inc.*

No. 1867.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 14, 1938.

M. R. Stewart, of Lake Charles, for appellant.

S. W. Plauche, of Lake Charles, for ap-pellee.

*

Keliearing granted July 27, 1938.

LE BLANC, Judge.

In this, case we have a situation regarding the entry and signing of a' judg•ment which is practically identical with that presented in the case of John Delahoussaye v. D. M. Glazer & Company, Inc., et al., La.App., 182 So. 146, in which an opinion and decree were this day handed down dismissing the appeal as having been prematurely taken. Like that suit, the present one is also a suit for compensation in which the district judge after trial handed down written reasons for judgment which can not be said to constitute a judgment inasmuch as it condemns no one nor does it contain any decree whatever.

As in the case referred to there is no final judgment on which to base the appeal and in the absence of such judgment the-court will on its own motion dismiss the same.

For these reasons and for the further reasons stated in the opinion in the case of Delahoussaye v. Glazer & Co. Inc., this day handed down, it is now ordered, adjudged and decreed that the appeal herein be dismissed as having been prematurely taken. Plaintiff to pay all costs of appeal.
EXHIBIT 32.2









CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS



I, Robert Smith, Chief Financial Officer of Roadships Holdings, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the "Registrant"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Report on Form 10-Q for the period of the Registrant from January 1, 2009 through March 31, 2009 (the "Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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







|                    |  |                                | 
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------ | 
|Date: June 10, 2009 |  | /s/ Robert Smith               | 
|                    |  | Name: Robert Smith            
|                    |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Despina Cholakis, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[676 NYS2d 497]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated July 10, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The medical evidence submitted by the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see, Mendola v Demetres,*212 AD2d 515). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOHN W. SMITH a/k/a JOHN WARD )

SMITH III, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3027

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed March 28, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Wayne M. Durden, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Judith Ellis, Assistant Public Defender, 

Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7361** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MICHAEL WALLACE RICE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Easter n District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:05

- cr - 00011

- REP

- 2; 3:08

- cv - 00403

- REP )

Submitted : February 23, 2012 Decided: February 27, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
. Michael Wallace Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Wallace Rice seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justi ce or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of t he denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rice has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
EX-35 (a)
(logo) ABN*AMRO


SERVICER'S STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE


Regulation AB Item 1123



The undersigned, an authorized officer of ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc, ("AAMG")
hereby certifies as follows:

1. I have made, or caused to be made under my supervision, a review of the
servicing activities of AAMG during the preceding calendar year ending December
31, 2006, and its performance under the applicable servicing agreement
referenced on Exhibit A hereto (the "Agreement"); and

2. Except as noted on Exhibit A hereto, to the best of my knowledge, based on
such review, AAMG has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in
all material respects throughout the preceding calendar year ending 2006.

In witness whereof, I the undersigned have executed this Servicer's Statement of
Compliance on this 27th day of February, 2007.



By: /s/ Georganna C. Pate
Name: Georganna C. Pate
Title: First Vice President



Attachment: Exhibit A


(page)


(logo) ABN*AMRO

EXHIBIT A
TO
SERVICER'S STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

2006

Regulation AB Item 1123


A. Agreement Referenced:

The Master Mortgage Loan Sale and Servicing agreement dated as of February 1,
2006 (the "Agreement"), among ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. and New York
Mortgage Company, LLC.



B. Failures to fulfill any obligation of the above referenced Agreement in any
material respect:

None