alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 31, 2022

No. 04-22-00260-CR

EX PARTE Jorge Favian Dominguez ORTIZ,

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10364CR

Honorable Roland Andrade, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On its own motion, a majority of the justices have voted to consider this appeal en banc.

It is ORDERED that the State’s First Amended Brief is ACCEPTED.

It is ORDERED that Appellant’s Unopposed First Motion to Extend Time to File 

Appellant’s Reply Brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s reply brief is due on or before September 

26, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ___________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

Clerk of Court
176 La. 180

#### FRANK GROCERY CO., Inc., v. TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

No. 31321.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 31, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 3, 1933..

Wise, Randolph, • Rendall & Eréyer, of Shreveport, and Spencer, Gidiere, Phelps & Dunbar, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Jackson & Smith, of Shreveport, for ap-pellee.

John L. Warren and Laurence K. Hawkins,' both of Boston, Mass., amici curte, for Eruit Dispatch Co.

ODOM, J.

This suit involves a controversy similar to that in Schuster’s Wholesale Produce Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. (La. Sup., No. 31320) 145 So. 368, this day decided. The facts are identical, and there was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.

For the reasons assigned in the case No. 31320, the judgment herein appealed from is reversed, and it is ordered that plaintiff’s demands be rejected and its suit dismissed, at its costs.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 168 (Thursday, August 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19940]



[[Page 50802]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13172-000]


FFP Ohio River 20, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Applications 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

August 21, 2008.
    On March 25, 2008, FFP Ohio River 20, LLC each filed an 
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Ohio River 20 Project, to be 
located on the Ohio River in Switzerland County, Indiana and Boone 
County, Kentucky.
    The proposed Ohio River 20 Project consists of: (1) 1,920 proposed 
20 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total installed 
capacity of 38.4 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line, and (3) 
appurtenant facilities. The FFP Ohio River 20, LLC, project would have 
an average annual generation of 168.19 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a 
local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Ohio River 20, LLC, 69 Bridge 
Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone (978) 232-3536.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, (202) 502-6062.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13172) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19940 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### John L. Burst, Appellant, *v.*Harley Wayne, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM McHENRY.

It is too late, after verdict, to take advantage of an omission to claim a specific sum in damages at the conclusion of a declaration, where the body of the count shows that the plaintiff claimed damages to an amount exceeding the verdict.

This cause was heard before Wilson, Judge, and a jury, at September term, 1851, of the McHenry Circuit Court, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the appellee.

The facts of the case are stated in the opinion.

T. L. Dickey and C. McClure, for appellant.

Church & Willard and Glover & Cook, for appellee.

Treat, C. J.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Wayne against Burst in July, 1850. A demurrer was sustained to the first count of the declaration; and the defendant pleaded non assumpsit to the second and third counts. A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $382.60. The defendant prosecuted an appeal to this court; and he has assigned for error that the declaration does not support the judgment. The second count, after setting out an agreement between the parties, and alleging a non-performance thereof on the part of the defendant, and averring that the plaintiff has sustained damages by reason of the premises to the amount of $1,200, concludes, “ to the damage of the said plaintiff of twelve hundred , and therefore he brings suit.” The third count alleges that the defendant, on the 1st day of September, 1850, was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $1,200, for work and labor before that time performed, and, being so indebted, promised to pay, &c. There is no *ad damnum*at the end of the declaration. The only objection taken to the third count is, that no specific sum in damages is claimed thereby. In our opinion this count is amply sufficient to sustain the judg*600ment. The omission in question might perhaps have been a cause of demurrer in the court below, but it is too late to take advantage of it in this court. It is one of those defects that are cured by verdict. The body of the count shows that the plaintiff claimed damages to an amount far exceeding -the verdict. The case of Peltier *v.*Britton, (4 Blackf. 502,) is an authority in point. In that case, the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff was left blank in the declaration. On error, thejudgment was affirmed. The court said: “ With regard to the omission to lay the amount of the damages in the conclusion of the declaration, it may be sufficient to say, that from the writ and declaration it appears that the sum sued for exceeds the amount assessed by the jury. The sum being right in other parts of the record, the omission is cured by the statute; and it is too late after inquisition to take advantage of it.” It will not be necessary to inquire as to the sufficiency of the third count. The jury were authorized to assess the damages on the second count; and after verdict, if necessary to sustain the judgment, it should be intended that they did so assess them.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 6, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1444 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 96-06057 -CV -JIC TURNER GREENBERG ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff-C ount erDe fendant-Appellee,
ve rs us C & C IM PO RT S, I N C. , aCa lif or nia corporation, d.b. a. Nancy Corzine, De fendant-CounterCl ai m an t- Appe llant,
ve rs us ST EV E T URN ER , JANET GREENBERG, Co unt er -D ef en dants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 6, 200 5)2

Be fo re BL A CK , MA RC U S an d F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: The reco rdful ly sup po rts th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt. Af firm ed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 12(b)



                          J. C. Penney Company, Inc.
                      (the Company and all subsidiaries)

          Computation of Ratios of Available Income to Fixed Charges


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              52 weeks  52 weeks
                                                ended     ended
                                              --------  --------
                                              Oct. 26,  Oct. 28,
                                                1996      1995
                                              --------  --------
<S>                                           <C>       <C>
($ Millions)
 
Income from continuing operations
  (before income taxes and
  before capitalized interest)                 $1,259    $1,493
                                               ------    ------
                                                       
Fixed charges                                          
                                                       
  Interest (including capitalized                      
   interest)                                           
                                                       
     On operating leases                          102        95
     On short term debt                           101       130
     On long term debt                            298       242
     On capital leases                              5         6
     Other, net                                     4         1
                                               ------    ------
                   Total fixed charges            510       474
                                               ------    ------
                                                       
                   Total available income      $1,769    $1,967
                                               ======    ======
                                                       
Ratio of available income to fixed charges        3.5       4.2
                                               ======    ======
 
</TABLE>


The interest cost of the LESOP notes guaranteed by the Company is not included
in fixed charges above.

The Company believes that, due to the seasonal nature of its business, ratios
for a period other than a 52 week period are inappropriate.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6264

ROBERT THOMAS HAMRIC, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-899-5-BR(2)) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: July 31, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Thomas Hamric, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert Thomas Hamric seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief without prejudice on his action challenging his conviction and sentence imposed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Hamric filed his claimfor relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). Because he was challenging his sentence, the district court construed his action as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion and denied relief on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction. Hamric seeks to challenge the validity of his drug conspiracy conviction under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Even if Apprendi claims are cognizable under § 2241, Hamric’s eighty month sentence for conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999) does not violate Apprendi . See United States v. Angle , F.3d , No. 96-4662, 2001 WL 732124, at *2 (4th Cir. June 29, 2001) (en banc) (finding no Apprendi error where sentence for conspiracy to commit a drug offense involving unspecified drug quantity was under twenty years). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying relief without prejudice. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

Nos. 07-1205

07-1398

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

RENÉ VÁZQUEZ-BOTET, M.D. and

MARCOS MORELL-CORRADA,

Defendants, Appellants.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on July 9, 2008, is amended

as follows:

On page 8, line 5: change "would" to "to."

On page 51, line 7: change "stem" to "stems."
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549



________________





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT,

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





DATE OF REPORT (Date of earliest event reported):  November 8, 2005





CHYRON CORPORATION

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

|New York                                       | 1-9014                   | 11-2117385                          
|---------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | ------------------------------------
|(State or Other Jurisdiction
of Incorporation) | (Commission File Number) | (I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)

|5 Hub Drive                              |           
|---------------------------------------- | ----------
|Melville, New York                       | 11747     
|(Address of Principal Executive Offices) | (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (631) 845-2000

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:



[ ] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

[ ] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))





---



Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition

On November 8, 2005, Chyron Corporation issued a press release announcing its results of operations for the third quarter ended September 30, 2005. A copy of the press release, including its Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited) for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005, and Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited) at September 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1



Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits

(c) Exhibits.

99.1 Press Release of Chyron Corporation dated November 8, 2005.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report on Form 8-K to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

CHYRON CORPORATION

| | By:    | /s/ Jerry Kieliszak      
| | ------ | -------------------------
| | Name:  | Jerry Kieliszak          
| | Title: | Senior Vice President and
| |        | Chief Financial Officer  





|Exhibit No. | Description                           
|----------- | --------------------------------------
|            |                                       
|99.1        | Press Release, dated November 8, 2005.

Date:  November 8, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7176

JESSE DWIGHT MIXION,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; MARTIN

MCDADE, Superintendent,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-96-931-6)

Submitted: January 30, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesse Dwight Mixion, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning

of the district court. Mixion v. Attorney Gen. of North Carolina,

No. CA-96-931-6 (M.D.N.C. July 18, 1997). We find that the Appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was not violated

because the State's proffered evidence was admissible under N.C.

Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(3), and Fed. R. Evid. 803(3), a "firmly

rooted" exception to the hearsay rule. See White v. Illinois, 502

U.S. 346, 356 (1992); see also State v. Cummings, 389 S.E.2d 66, 74

(N.C. 1990); State v. Faucette, 392 S.E.2d 71, 74-75 (N.C. 1990).

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
Exhibit 32(a)



PEOPLES ENERGY CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES

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 combined Quarterly Report of Peoples Energy Corporation (the "Company"), The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company ("Peoples Gas") and North Shore Gas Company ("North Shore Gas") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas M. Patrick, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company, Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas.



|/s/ THOMAS M. PATRICK |  |  | February 7, 2006
|--------------------- |  |  | ----------------
|                      |  |  | Date            

Thomas M. Patrick
Chairman of the Board, 
President and Chief Executive Officer of
Peoples Energy Corporation



|/s/ THOMAS M. PATRICK |  |  | February 7, 2006
|--------------------- |  |  | ----------------
|                      |  |  | Date            

Thomas M. Patrick
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company



|/s/ THOMAS M. PATRICK |  |  | February 7, 2006
|--------------------- |  |  | ----------------
|                      |  |  | Date            

Thomas M. Patrick
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
North Shore Gas Company
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 131849 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 131849 COA: 267814 Ingham CC: 95-069404-FC RICHARD RAYMOND, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 27, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

p1120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2006

Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS

      I, Zhenyong Liu, Chief Executive Officer of Orient Paper Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) the Transition Report on Form 10-K for the transition period of Orient
Paper Inc. (the "Registrant") from March 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007
resulting from the change of the Company's fiscal year end from February 28 to
December 31 (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: April 15, 2008                          /s/ Zhenyong Liu
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name:  Zhenyong Liu
                                              Title: Chief Executive 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.
#### James MALLARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. COSTELLO, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-6618.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 21, 2003.

James Mallard, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

James Mallard seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mallard 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*