alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20972

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH OMOWALE,

also known as JOSEPH TERRON BENNETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-294-1

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

June 19, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Omowale appeals his guilty-plea conviction under

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon. He argues that the factual basis for his guilty plea,

which showed his intrastate possession of a firearm manufactured

outside the state, was insufficient to establish the nexus with

interstate commerce required by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He

surmises, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in
No. 01-20972

-2-

Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), United States v.

Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), and United States v. Lopez, 514

U.S. 549 (1995), that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) can no longer be

constitutionally “construed to cover the intrastate possession of

a firearm merely because it traveled across state lines at some

point in the past.” He acknowledges that his claim is foreclosed

by existing Fifth Circuit precedent and states that he raises the

claim solely to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review.

Omowale’s claim is indeed foreclosed by circuit precedent. 

See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 & n.12 (5th

Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1113 (2002); United States

v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### BARILLEAU v. PAQUET.

No. 14915.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 4, 1935.

Prowell, McBride & Ray, of New Orleans, for appellant.

*419Sydney J. Parlongue, of New Orleans, for appellee.

LÉCHE, Judge.

Prom a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $120, defendant has appealed. Plaintiff answered the appeal asking that the judgment be increased to the amount prayed for.

Defendant is engaged in the real estate business and plaintiff filed this suit claiming the sum of $180, representing salary as bookkeeper for twelve months at $15 per month, •and the further sum of $80.59, representing earned commissions. It appears that plaintiff entered defendant’s employ on or about April 1, 1982, as bookkeeper, at a salary of $15 per month, and as salesman on a commission basis. Plaintiff’s earned commissions as salesman were negligible, and after several weeks under this arrangement a new agree- • ment was made whereby the $15 salary was discontinued and plaintiff was to receive a fiat commission of $5 on all sales over $2,-500 and $2.50 on all sales under $2,500. This arrangement increased her earnings considerably. She received the salary of $15 for one month prior to the new ai'rangement, and made no demand or mention of same until many months later, when she was about to leave defendant’s employ. In support of this claim she offers the books of defendant, which were kept in her handwriting. But she was hound to do this under the new arrangement, and, in our opinion, has failed to sustain her claim for salary as bookkeeper.

In addition to her duties as bookkeeper, plaintiff was in charge of defendant's rental department under an arrangement whereby she was .to receive 50 per cent, of the commission on all listings made by herself and by defendant, and 10 per cent, of the commissions on all listings brought in by salesmen. She admits payment in full on all commissions earned before she left the employ of defendant, hut is now claiming the sum of $80.59, representing commissions after she left defendant’s employ, but on listings made before that time.

An examination of the record-convinces • us that plaintiff is entitled to these commissions, as all of the properties were listed while she was in defendant’s employ as manager of the rental department, and nearly all of them were listings procured by plaintiff herself. While there is some conflict in the testimony, the record does not disclose any arrangement whereby plaintiff was to forfeit her commission upon leaving defendant’s employ. In those few cases where defendant refunded the earned commission she did so to satisfy her clients and obtain good will for her business, but this was no concern of plaintiff’s. The same question was decided in Nebel v. Wise & Miller, 6 La. App. 773.

Por the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is amended by reducing the sum awarded plaintiff from $120 to the sum of $80.59, and, as thus amended, it is affirmed, at the cost of defendant.

Amended and affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**THE PENNTRAFFIC COMPANY**

 

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

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of The Penn Traffic Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the fiscal period ending October 29, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Gregory J. Young, President & Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

# (1)               The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

#  

# (2)               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

#  

 
|                                   |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Gregory J.  Young                      |   |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                   |
| April 8, 2008                     |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

     <ARTICLE> 5
     <LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME
     OF J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF APRIL 26, 1997, AND
     IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
     </LEGEND>
     <RESTATED> 
     <MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
            
     <S>                             <C>
     <PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
     <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
     <PERIOD-END>                               APR-26-1997
     <CASH>                                           2,553
     <SECURITIES>                                       901
     <RECEIVABLES>                                    3,651
     <ALLOWANCES>                                        71
     <INVENTORY>                                      5,830
     <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,926
     <PP&E>                                           7,994
     <DEPRECIATION>                                   2,970
     <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,536
     <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,135
     <BONDS>                                          7,538
     <COMMON>                                         2,667
     <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
     <PREFERRED>                                        558
     <OTHER-SE>                                       3,951
     <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,536
     <SALES>                                          6,481
     <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,705
     <CGS>                                            4,677
     <TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,191
     <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   105
     <LOSS-PROVISION>                                    46
     <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 135
     <INCOME-PRETAX>                                    228
     <INCOME-TAX>                                        89
     <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                139
     <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
     <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
     <CHANGES>                                            0
     <NET-INCOME>                                       139
     <EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54
     <EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
             


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Eugene K.Rowehl, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kimball Hill, Inc.;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 21,2006
|        | /s/ EUGENE K.  ROWEHL                                               |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Eugene K. Rowehl*Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* |

 

1

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ADAM BUTLER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 347 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ADAM BUTLER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 348 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of February, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
ORDER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0173

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH PAUL DEWISE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 8, 2021, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve his opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 4 2021

10/04/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0173
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 168 (Thursday, August 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19952]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-923-1310-FI; WYW161799]


Wyoming: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and 
Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas 
Lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement from Retamco Operating Inc. for competitive 
oil and gas lease WYW161799 for land in Carbon County, Wyoming. The 
petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due 
since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. 
Lewis, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre, or 
fraction thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The 
lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to 
reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. 
The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease 
as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act 
of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing 
to reinstate lease WYW161799 effective April 1, 2008, under the 
original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and 
royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting 
the lands.

Pamela J. Lewis,
Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. E8-19952 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Applera Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis L. Winger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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/ Dennis L. Winger   
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|Date: November 7, 2007
18473.

#### LIVELY *et al. v.*GRINSTEAD, Supervisor.

Argued January 13, 1954

Decided February 9, 1954.

*363
      *Frank Grizzard, Frank A. Bowers, John L. Bespess, Jr., Margaret Hopkins, Guy Tyler, Edward E. Dorsey, D. B. Phillips, Davis & Stringer, Johnson & Johnson,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Hugh C. Carney, Hamilton B. Stephens, Assistant Attorneys-General,*contra.

Sutton, Justice.

“Intervenors in an equity suit take the case as they find it, and cannot establish equities in their own behalf by intervention where the original petition in the case in which they intervene does not allege an equitable cause of action.” *Smith*v. *Manning,*155 *Ga.*209 (4) (116 S. E. 813). Nor will constitutional questions be passed upon unless their determination is necessary to a disposition of the case. *Sumter County*v. *Allen,*
      *364193 *Ga.*171, 173 (17 S. E. 2d 567); *Harper*v. *Davis,*197 *Ga.*762, 765 (30 S. E. 2d 481); *Powers*v. *Wren,*198 *Ga.*316 (3) (31 S. E. 2d 713); *Hutchins*v. *Candler,*209 *Ga.*415, 416 (73 S. E. 2d 191); *Aiken*v. *Richardson,*209 *Ga.*837 (4) (76 S. E. 2d 393); and citations. Therefore, the question arises as to whether the petitioners have exhausted their statutory remedy.

Section 2 of the act of 1951 (Ga. L. 1951, p. 565; Code, Ann. Supp., § 92A-602) provides for a hearing upon the request of any person aggrieved by acts of the director, and that “any order or act of the Director, under the provisions of this act, shall be subject to review by the superior court in the county of the residence of the complaining party in a proper proceeding.”

Equity by writ of injunction will restrain any act which is illegal or contrary to equity and good conscience and for which no adequate remedy at law is provided. Code § 37-102; *Chadwick*v. *Dolinoff,*207 *Ga.*702 (2) (64 S. E. 2d 76); *Waycross Military Assn.*v. *Hiers,*209 *Ga.*812 (5) (76 S. E. 2d 486). But where all the relief sought can be obtained in the manner provided by law, a suit in equity for injunction will not lie. *Scarbrough*v. *Cook,*208 *Ga.*697 (1) (69 S. E. 2d 201).

Applying the above-stated principles of law to the pleadings under consideration, the allegations of the petition as amended, which neither made any reference to a request for a hearing nor to any appeal to the superior court, failed to state a cause of action for the injunctive relief that was sought, and the trial judge did not err in sustaining the defendant’s general demurrer and in dismissing the action.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
**Exhibit      32(b)**

| (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 result of operations of the                Company,                Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                THOMAS A. NARDI |   |   | February                9, 2007 |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------|
|                               |   |   | Date                            |

| /s/                THOMAS A. NARDI |   |   | February                9, 2007 |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------|
|                               |   |   | Date                            |

| /s/                THOMAS A. NARDI |   |   | February                9, 2007 |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------|
|                               |   |   | Date                            |
<PAGE> 1

                                  Exhibit 11.1

PAYLESS CASHWAYS, INC.

COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS
-----------------------------

(In thousands, except per share amounts)
      
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                              Thirteen Weeks Ended
                                                        --------------------------------
                                                           March 1,         February 24,
                                                            1997                1997    
                                                        ------------        ------------

<S>                                                     <C>                 <C>          
PRIMARY
-------

Net loss                                                $  (8,135)          $  (7,623)   

 Less:
      Preferred stock dividends                            (1,571)             (1,452)   
                                                        ----------          ----------   

Net loss attributable to Common Stock                   $  (9,706)          $  (9,075)   
                                                        
Weighted average common shares outstanding                 39,959 (1)          39,916 (1)
                                                        ----------          ----------   
Net loss per common share                               $    (.24)          $    (.23)   
                                                        ==========          ==========   


FULLY DILUTED
-------------

Net loss attributable to Common Stock                   $  (9,706)          $  (9,075)   
                                                        
Weighted average common shares outstanding                 39,959 (1)          39,916 (1)
                                                        ----------          ----------   

Net loss per common share                               $    (.24)          $    (.23)   
                                                        ==========          ==========   


<FN>
(1) Due to a loss being incurred for the period,  dilutive common equivalent shares have not been computed as the resulting loss per
    share would be antidilutive.


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
23.3





CONSENT OF SCHLUMBERGER
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION





As
independent petroleum engineers, Data & Consulting Services Division of
Schlumberger Technology Corporation hereby consents to the inclusion or
incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No.
333-149190), the registration statement (No. 333¬159888) on Form S-3, the
registration statement (No. 333-153579) on Form S-3/A and the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended 31 December 2009 of BreitBurn Energy
Partners L.P. of information from our firm’s reserve report dated 11 February
2010, entitled “Reserve and Economic Evaluation Of Proved Reserves Of Certain
BreitBurn Management Company, LLC Illinois and Michigan Basin Oil And Gas
Interests As Of 31 December 2009 Executive Summary” and all references to our
firm included in or made part of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended 31 December 2009 of BreitBurn Energy Partners


L.P.





SCHLUMBERGER
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION





By:
              /s/ Charles M. Boyer II,
    P.G.





Charles
M. Boyer II, PG Advisor Unconventional Reservoirs


Pittsburgh
Consulting Services


Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania


March 8,
2010