alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harry A. Thompson v. The Fargo Heating & Plumbing Company.

Opinion filed June 28, 1905.

Appeal from Justice Court — Approval of Undertaking.

1. The fact that the undertaking on appeal from justice court was presented to the clerk of the district court, and his approval indorsed thereon before the notice of appeal and undertaking were served, was not an irregularity which invalidated the appeal. '

Appeal from District Court, Burleigh county; *Burke,*S'. J.

Action by Harry A. Thompson against the Fargo Plumbing & Heating Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Reversed.

*Newton & Dullam,*for appellant.

*406(104 N. W. *525.)*

*F. H. Register,*for respondent.

Engerud, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing an appeal from justice court for irregularity. The appellant, before serving the notice of appeal and undertaking on the adverse party, presented the undertaking to the clerk of the district court, and the latter indorsed thereon a formal approval thereof. The notice and undertaking were served two days later, and were subsequently filed in the clerk’s office, with proof of service. All these acts were done within the time allowed for appeal. The only irregularity alleged as ground for dismissal was the fact that the formal approval was indorsed on the undertaking before service and filing. This was no ground for dismissal. It is not material in what chronological order the acts necessary to perfect an appeal are done, provided they are all done within the time prescribed by law. Respondent relies upon the case of Eldridge v. Knight, 11 N. D. *552, 93*N. W. 860, wherein Judge Cochrane, speaking for the court, said: “The statute makes the service, approval and filing of the undertaking, prerequisite to the transfer of jurisdiction from one court to the other. * * * The order of performance of the separate steps necessary to' be taken in accomplishing the transfer is the order in which they ■are named. The first step is the service of the notice of appeal ■and undertaking upon the adverse party or his attorney, and the last one necessary to 'the transfer of jurisdiction is the filing of the ■notice of appeal and undertaking in the clerk’s office.” In ■that case the district court had dismissed an appeal because the ■undertaking had' not been filed and approved before service. This court reversed that ruling of the lower court, and held 'that it was proper practice to serve the notice and undertaking, and have it approved and filed afterwards. It was not intended by the language used in that case to convey the idea that the successive steps requisite to an appeal must necessarily be taken in the order therein mentioned, and not otherwise.

The judgment is reversed.

All concur.
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5THCIR. R. 47.5.4.

1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 5, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No.06-60705

Summary Calendar

___________________________

JAMES R. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

VERSUS

CITY OF AMORY, MISSISSIPPI, and JOHN BISHOP,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Mississippi, Eastern Division

1:04-CV-299

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

James Williams appeals the dismissal of his § 1983 claim against the City of Amory,

Mississippi and its police officer John Bishop on summary judgment. Williams’ suit claims that

the defendants arrested him without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 

Williams was arrested after the police observed him driving recklessly, nearly causing two

accidents. He asserts that his arrest was without probable cause and unconstitutional because

witnesses at the scene of his arrest told the officer that Williams did not drink or do drugs and that

he must be suffering from a medical condition. 
2

The district court concluded that the evidence in the summary judgment record raised a

genuine issue of fact as to whether the defendants acted negligently, but also recognized that

negligence alone was insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. We agree. As the plaintiff

recognizes, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those

who knowingly violate the law. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). Williams’ actions

prior to his arrest clearly gave the officers probable cause to arrest him. The officer’s failure to

recognize and act on William’s medical condition was at most negligent and therefore not

sufficiently aberrant to overcome the defense of qualified immunity. 

Regarding Williams’ claims against the city, the district court concluded that Williams

failed to establish liability on the part of the city based on a failure to demonstrate that the alleged

misconduct in this case was the result of a municipal policy or custom as required by Monell v.

Dept. of Social Services of City of New York, 426 U.S. 658 (1978). Again, we agree. The

above analysis also supports the conclusion of the district court that Williams failed to state a

claim under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. That act requires “reckless disregard for the safety

and well-being of any person not engaged in a criminal act at the time of injury.” Mississippi

Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(c). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing the plaintiff’s case on

summary judgment for essentially the reasons stated in the district court’s Order dated July 12,

2006 

AFFIRMED.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 77

To permit Members of the House of Representatives to use their unspent

official allowances for reduction of the national debt.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland (for himself, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. STUMP, Mr.

MCHUGH, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. CANADY, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. BAKER of California, Mr. WALSH, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. GOSS, Mr. DICKEY, Ms. DUNN, Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr.

GILCHREST, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. HANCOCK, Mr.

ISTOOK, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. CASTLE, Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas, Mr.

HORN, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. SAXTON, Mr.

SPENCE, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. BAKER of Louisiana, Mr.

CHRYSLER, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. CRAPO, Ms. PRYCE, Mr. GEKAS, Mr.

PORTMAN, Mr. TORKILDSEN, Mr. KIM, Mr. GREENWOOD, Mr.

HEINEMAN, and Mr. COX) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Oversight

A BILL

To permit Members of the House of Representatives to use

their unspent official allowances for reduction of the

national debt.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 77 IH

1 SECTION 1. UNSPENT AMOUNTS FROM ALLOWANCES OF

2 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA3 TIVES TO BE AVAILABLE FOR NATIONAL

4 DEBT REDUCTION.

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the

6 extent that an allowance of a Member of the House of

7 Representatives is not otherwise used for a purpose speci8 fied by law or other authority, such allowance shall be

9 available to the Member for reduction of the national debt.

10 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

11 As used in this Act—

12 (1) the term ‘‘Member of the House of Rep13 resentatives’’ means a Representative in, or a Dele14 gate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;

15 and

16 (2) the term ‘‘allowance’’ means, with respect

17 to a Member of the House of Representatives, the

18 official expenses allowance, the clerk hire allowance,

19 the official mail allowance, or any other official al20 lowance of the Member.

Æ
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 755

To reduce the amount authorized for the Official Mail Allowance for Members

of the House of Representatives by 20 percent.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 31, 1995

Mr. HOLDEN (for himself, Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin, Mr. BLUTE, Mr.

CANADY of Florida, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. JACOBS, Mr.

KLINK, Mr. LINDER, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. MILLER of

Florida, Mr. POSHARD, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Mr. ZIMMER) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Oversight

A BILL

To reduce the amount authorized for the Official Mail Allowance for Members of the House of Representatives by

20 percent.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCTION.

4 Section 311(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Legislative Branch Ap5 propriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 59e(e)(2)(B)(i)) is

6 amended by striking ‘‘3’’ and inserting ‘‘2.4’’.
2

•HR 755 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 The amendment made by this Act shall apply with

3 respect to sessions of Congress beginning with the first

4 regular session of Congress beginning after the date of

5 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 12.1


                          JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTELS, L.P
                 HISTORICAL RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                (000's omitted)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   1995           1996           1997           1998            1999
                                               -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------  --------------
<S>                                            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
HISTORICAL EARNINGS:
Net income (loss) before minority interest,
 provision for income taxes, extraordinary
 item and cumulative effect of change in
 accounting principle                                $18,729        $18,524        $ 8,791        $   338        $  (973)

Add:
Interest, amortization or deferred
 financing fees and other fixed  charges
 (excluding interest capitalized)                     28,904         36,337         45,086         58,257         63,456
                                                     -------        -------        -------        -------        -------
   Historical earnings                               $47,633        $54,861        $53,877        $58,595        $62,483
                                                     =======        =======        =======        =======        =======
FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense and
 amortization of deferred
 financing fees                                      $28,447        $35,620        $44,325        $57,286        $62,209

Interest capitalized                                   5,270          7,162         10,259          6,163          6,770

Interest element of rentals                              457            717            761            971          1,247
                                                     -------        -------        -------        -------        -------
   Fixed charges                                     $34,174        $43,499        $55,345        $64,420        $70,226
                                                     -------        -------        -------        -------        -------
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 (A)                                                    1.39           1.26           0.97           0.91           0.89
                                                     =======        =======        =======        =======        =======
</TABLE>

(A) In computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges, earnings have been
    based on income from operations before income taxes and fixed charges
    (exclusive of interest capitalized) and fixed charges consist of interest
    and amortization of deferred financing fees (including amounts capitalized)
    and the estimated interest portion of rents (deemed to be one-third of
    rental expense).

                                       37
#### Tina Myers, Respondent, v. Andreas Fox, as Executor, etc., Appellant.

Motion to resettle order denied, with costs. Present—Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7767

WILLIE JOE STURKEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR OF SCDC; J. GASTON; LIEUTENANT BOUY, in their 

individual capacity, in their official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (2:13-cv-03451-RMG)

Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Joe Sturkey, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Willcox Buyck, 

Gordon Wade Cooper, BUYCK, SANDERS & SIMMONS, Charleston, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Joe Sturkey appeals the district court’s order 

accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we deny his motions to appoint counsel and affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sturkey v. 

Dir. of SCDC, No. 2:13-cv-03451-RMG (D.S.C. Nov. 17, 2014). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
##### 



EXHIBIT 99-A

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 of Otter Tail Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
D. Erickson, President and Chief Executive Officer 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/ John D. Erickson                               
| |                                                    
| | John D. Erickson                                   
| | President and Chief Executive Officer

May 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Otter Tail Corporation and will be retained by Otter Tail
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 27, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00251

- CV

IN RE HEB GROCERY COMPANY, LP

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Cha pa , Justice

On May 20 , 2015, newly retained appellate counsel for real party in interest Patricia Rani

Spaulding filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to file a response to the petition for

writ of mandamus. The motion is GRANTED. A response on behalf of the real party in interest

is due in this court no later than June 19, 2015

.

It is so ORDERED on May 27, 2015

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

, Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013

- CI

- 08676 , styled Patricia Rani Spaulding v. HEB, Inc., HEB

Grocery Company, LP; HEBCO GP, LLC and HEBCO Partners, Ltd. , pending in the 285th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Martha Tanner presiding.
EXHIBIT 31.2

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert Brady, the Acting Chief Financial Officer of Skyline Multimedia
Entertainment, Inc certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Skyline Multimedia
Entertainment, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report
          is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls.

October 15, 2004




/s/ Robert Brady
----------------
Name: Robert Brady
Title: Acting Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6091 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6091

      To repeal the Military Selective Service Act, including the 
    registration requirements of the Military Selective Service Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 30, 2021

  Mr. Perry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To repeal the Military Selective Service Act, including the 
    registration requirements of the Military Selective Service Act.

    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 ``Military Selective Service Repeal 
Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

    (a) Repeal.--The Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 3801 et 
seq.) is repealed.
    (b) Transfers in Connection With Repeal.--Notwithstanding the 
proviso in section 10(a)(4) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 
U.S.C. 3809(a)(4)), the Office of Selective Service Records shall not 
be reestablished upon the repeal of the Act. Not later than 180 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the assets, contracts, 
property, and records held by the Selective Service System, and the 
unexpended balances of any appropriations available to the Selective 
Service System, shall be transferred to the Administrator of General 
Services upon the repeal of the Act. The Director of the Office of 
Personnel Management shall assist officers and employees of the 
Selective Service System to transfer to other positions in the 
executive branch.
    (c) Effect on Existing Sanctions.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, a person may not be denied a right, privilege, 
benefit, or employment position under Federal law on the grounds that 
the person, before the repeal of the Military Selective Service Act (50 
U.S.C. 3801 et seq.) by subsection (a), failed to present himself for 
and submit to registration under section 3 of such Act (50 U.S.C. 
3802).
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Quayshawn B. and Others, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Tasha H. et al., Respondents; Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Appellant.

[680 NYS2d 790]

Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about February 20, 1998, unanimously dismissed, *sua sponte,*without costs or disbursements, as moot, in light of the subsequent order of the same court (Sara Schechter, J.), entered on or about August 4, *6981998, which dismissed the petition alleging neglect. No opinion. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.