alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2327
W&M PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED OF VIRGINIA, d/b/a Merrifield Village Apartment Company, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CAROLYN A. MILLIGAN; JOHNNY MILLIGAN, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-04-981-1) Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 19, 2005 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carolyn A. Milligan, Johnny Milligan, Appellants Pro Se. Andrew Greenleaf Lawrence, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Johnny L. Milligan and Carolyn A. Milligan seek to appeal the district court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion and remanding this action to state court because the notice of removal was not timely filed and for lack of federal jurisdiction. The district court’s remand order is not reviewable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2000). We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4075

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND C. ASBERRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(6:11-cr-02200-TMC-1)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lora Blanchard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond C. Asberry appeals the fourteen-month sentence

imposed by the district court upon revocation of Asberry’s 

supervised release. On appeal, Asberry’s counsel has filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but 

questioning whether the district court adequately explained 

Asberry’s revocation sentence. Although notified of his right 

to do so, Asberry has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. 

Our review of the record reveals no error in the district 

court’s explanation of Asberry’s sentence. See United States v. 

Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. 

Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s revocation

judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Asberry, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Asberry requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on Asberry. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Dismissed and Opinion Filed May 3, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 86

- 01220

- CV

LONGORIA INDUSTRIES, INC. , Appellant

V. LEOPARD GARLAND, LTD. , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 86

- 5289

- D

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Osborne We reinstate this appeal . This case was abated in 1987 due to bankruptcy

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 8.2

. T he Court conduct ed an independent review of the federal Public

Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system ; however, nothing on that

system indicated that a bankruptcy case was still pending

.
We then notified the parties b y lett er, requesting they inform the Court of the

status of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the failure to respond

would result in the appeal being dismiss ed for want of prosecution

. See id.

42.3(b),(c). To date, neither party has responde d.– 2

–

Because we gave the parties an opportunity to show why we should not

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and no one responded , we dismiss the

appeal. See id. 42.3(b),(c).

861220f.p05 /Leslie Osborne/ LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

LONGORIA INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant

No. 05

- 86

- 01220

- CV V.

LEOPARD GARLAND, LTD., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 86

- 5289

- D. Opinion delivered by Justice Osborne. Justices Pedersen, III and Nowell participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered this 3 rd day of May, 2021.
Exhibit 21.1



LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                    |  |                              
|----------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                  |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|1.      DSP Group Ltd.              |  | Israel                       
|                                    | 
|2.      Nihon DSP K.K.              |  | Japan                        
|                                    | 
|3.      RF Integrated Systems, Inc. |  | Delaware, U.S.               
|                                    | 
|4.      VoicePump, Inc.             |  | California, U.S.             
|                                    | 
|5.      DSPG Edinburgh Ltd.         |  | Scotland                     
|                                    | 
|6.      DSP Video Korea Ltd.        |  | Korea
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1995, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                            8701
<SECURITIES>                                     28925
<RECEIVABLES>                                    17928
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1123
<INVENTORY>                                      22431
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 82288
<PP&E>                                           55671
<DEPRECIATION>                                   27395
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  113658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            21841
<BONDS>                                          12605
<COMMON>                                           128
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       74530
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    113658
<SALES>                                          80842
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 80842
<CGS>                                            45488
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    45488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 25151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  11676
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3580
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               8096
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      8096
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64
        

</TABLE>
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16

- 654 V

Filed: October 31, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

LISA PICKER

, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Influenza ;

* Shoulder Injury; SIRVA ;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mary Coffey, Coffey & Nichols, LLC, St. Louis, MO

, for petitioner.

Linda Sara Renzi , U

. S

. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On June 2, 2016

, p etitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the “Vaccine

Act”)

. Peti tioner alleges that s he suffered a shoulder injury rela ted to vaccine

administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) following receipt of her October 8, 2014 influenza vaccinati on

. Petit ion at 1

. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of

Special Masters.

On October 31, 2016

, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) r eport in which she

concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule

4(c) Report at 1

. Specifically, respondent “ has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury

is consistent with SIRVA and was caused

- in

- fact by the administration of a flu vaccine

on October 8, 2014. There were no other causes identified for petitioner’ s SIRVA.

Records indicate that she has suffered the sequela of her injuries for more than six

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance wi th

the E

- Government Act of 2002

. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).2 months. ” Id. at 3

. Respondent further agrees that p etitioner has satisfied all legal

prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act

. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the

undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**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 the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Richard A. Horowitz, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, 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/  Richard A. Horowitz    |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Richard A. Horowitz         |
| Principal Executive Officer |
| November 12, 2004      |

 

1

----
<PAGE>

                          OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION
                 EXHIBIT 11: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Three Months Ended June 30,      Nine Months Ended September 30,
                                                           ---------------------------      -------------------------------
(Dollars and Shares in Millions Except per Share Data)        1999            1998             1999                1998
                                                           ----------      -----------      -----------         -----------
<S>                                                        <C>             <C>              <C>                 <C>
Basic Earnings per Share:
  Net Income (Loss)                                             $11.0         $(121.2)            $32.9            $(133.4)

  Weighted Average Number of Shares                              20.4            20.4              20.4               20.4
                                                           ----------      -----------      -----------         -----------

  Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share                               $0.54         $ (5.94)            $1.61            $ (6.54)
                                                           ==========      ===========      ===========         ===========

Diluted Earnings Per Shares:
  Net Income (Loss)                                             $11.0         $(121.2)            $32.9            $(133.4)

  Weighted Average Number of Shares                              20.4            20.4              20.4               20.4
  Common Stock Equivalents (Stock Options)                        0.2            ----               0.2               ----
                                                           ----------      -----------      -----------         -----------

  Average Shares Outstanding                                     20.6            20.4              20.6               20.4
                                                           ----------      -----------      -----------         -----------

    Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share                           $0.53         $ (5.94)            $1.60            $ (6.54)
                                                           ==========      ===========      ===========         ===========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF O'SULLIVAN INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC. FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED JUNE 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          11,867
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,070
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,095
<INVENTORY>                                     65,256
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               142,530
<PP&E>                                         172,426
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,878
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 296,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,946
<BONDS>                                        247,299
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,781
<PREFERRED>                                     55,822
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                    (89,724)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   296,128
<SALES>                                        423,425
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               423,425
<CGS>                                          298,387
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  298,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,595
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,190
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,050
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,860)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (305)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,165)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### GOULDEN v. NAMREKA CORPORATION.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.

May 6, 1935.

Warlow, Carpenter & Fishback, of Orlando, for appellant.

Hugh Akerman, of Orlando, for appellee.

BUFORD, Justice.

This is an appeal from a final decree dismissing bill of complaint to cancel a tax deed upon the ground that the same is void.

The only question presented for our consideration is: “Is a tax deed executed and dated on October 30, 1933, in form prescribed by law prior to passage of chapter 14572, Acts of 1929 [Ex. Sess.], and omitting the word ‘subsequent’ prescribed by the 1929 Act void on its face?”

The 1929 Act, § 12, prescribed (see section 779, Rev. Gen. St., section 1003, Cumulative Supplement 1934, p. 123) the substantial form of tax deed and prescribed that' the deed should contain, amongst other things, substantially the following language: “¿nd whereas said applicant has redeemed (or purchased and surrendered) all other outstanding subsequent tax certificates covering said land, and proper notice having been given as required by law of his application for issue of this deed, and no owner, claimant or other person entitled to redeem said land has appeared to redeem the same.”

The tax deed in this case, as shown by the record, contained the following language: “and whereas said applicant has purchased all other outstanding tax certificates covering said land, and proper notice having been given as required by law of its application for the issue of this deed, and no owner, claimant, or other person entitled to redeem said land, has appeared to redeem the same.”

The question is: “Does the language used in the deed substantially comply with the form prescribed by statute?” We hold that it does. *,*

The deed recites that the applicant has purchased all other outstanding tax certificates covering said land. This declaration goes further than what is required by statute. The statute only requires that the deed recite that the applicant has purchased all other outstanding *subsequent*tax certificates. If it recites that the applicant has purchased *all*other outstanding tax certificates, then the recitation is paramount to one that the applicant has purchased all outstanding prior and subsequent tax certificates covering the land. So, the decree is without error and should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

ELLIS, P. J., and TERRELL, J., concur.

WHITFIELD, O. J., and BROWN and DAVIS, JJ., concur in the opinion and judgment.
#### John P. Bohling, Respondent, v. Sara G. Bronson, Appellant.

Appeal from an order entered in the Mew York county clerk’s office on the loth day of January, 1909, denying the defendant’s motion to require plaintiff’s attorney to furnish the present address of plaintiff.

Per Curiam:

We think the defendant was entitled to information as to tlié present whereabouts of the plaintiff before she should be compelled to try the action. The' order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted requiring the plaintiff’s attorney to inform the defendant’s attorney as to the present address of the plaintiff. All proceedings on the part of the plaintiff are stayed until twenty days after such information is given. Present — Ingraham, McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ. Crder reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted as stated in opinion; proceedings in the meantime stayed. Settle order on notice.
Order entered August 15 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00916
- CV IN THE MATTER OF K.Z.S., A JUVENILE On Appeal from the County C ourt At Law No. 1

Kaufman C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20J
- 043

O RDER
We REINSTATE this appeal. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed October 21, 2021

. The record was filed, and a ppellant’s brief was originally due December 23, 20 21. We not ified appellant the brief was o v erdue and order ed the b rief to be filed within te n days. When a brief was not file d , we is sued an order dated J anuary 21, 2021 ab ating the case for a hearing in the trial court to d etermine why appellant’s brief had not been
filed

. On March 2, 2022, we r ein stated the appeal and adopted the trial c ourt ’s findings inc luding that on February 18, 2022 appellant’s counsel obtained authority from appellant to pursue the appeal on certain theories, appellant’s counsel wasprepared to file the brief in this appe a l, and there was no need for the appointment

of new counsel . We or dered counsel Casey T. Boyd to file appellant ’ s b rief within ten days, and cautioned Mr. Boyd t hat failure to do so would res ult in the Cou rt taking what ever action it deemed appropriate t o ensure the appeal proceeded in a timely manner. Appel lant ’ s b rief was not filed as order ed.
Con sequ ently, o n May 3, 2022, we issued a second order abating the appeal for a hearing to determine why appellant ’ s brief had not been filed. On July 8, 2022, w e re ceived the reporter ’ s record from the hearing

. At that hearing, Mr. Boy d testified that after careful discussion with the gu ardian and his client, they

were electing to withdraw the appeal. Mr. Boyd fu rther testified that he would

sen d “ a w aiver of appeal ” to the trial court and to this Court. Although the clerk ’ s office has left voice mails regarding Mr. Boy d ’ s failure t o file a moti on to di smiss , to date, Mr. Boyd has not filed a motion to dismiss this appeal or ot herwise corresponded with the Cou rt regarding the status of this appeal.
We therefore ORDER Casey T. Boyd to file either a motion to dismiss this appeal or appellant’s brief BY 5:00 P.M. ON AUG UST 26, 2022

. M r. Boyd is CAUTIONED that the Court will not en tertain any motions for exten s ion of time in this case. If M r . Boyd does n ot file a motion to dismiss o r a brief by August 26,
2022 , the Court may initiate contempt p roceedings against h im for the failure and refusal to obey the Court’s order

. S e e T EX
. R

. A PP
. P. 3 8

. 8 (a)(2)

. The Court mayalso take such other actions as may be appropriate, includ ing filing a grievance

against M r. Boyd and referring this matt er to the State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline for further proceedings.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Mr. Casey T. Boyd by certified mail at h is address as shown in our records. We also DIRECT the Clerk to se nd a copy of this order to the Honorable Tracy Gray , Presiding Judge, Kaufman County Court at Law No. 1; and to all parties.

/ s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE