alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
176 La. 670

#### COCKERHAM v. COCKERHAM.

No. 31279.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 27, 1933.

Amos L. Ponder and Carroll Buck, both of Amite, for appellant.

Nidholls Pugh, of Springville, for appellee.

BRUNOT, Justice.

This is a suit for an absolute divorce and for the permanent custody and control of three minor children, issue of the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant. In the court below there was judgment for the plaintiff as prayed for in the petition, and the defendant appealed.

The recitals of the petition meet the requirements of the law and are in the form usually followed in divorce suits. The suit is based upon one specific act of adultery, which is alleged to have been committed by the defendant with C. J. Sellers, at Frost, La., on August 24,1930. In her answer to the suit the defendant emphasizes her denial of the alleged act of adultery; avers that the plaintiff has thereby falsely and publicly defamed her; and, assuming the attitude of plaintiff in reconvention, she alleges that she is entitled to a judgment in her favor decreeing a separation “a mensa et thoro” between her and the plaintiff, and a rule upon him to show cause why he should not be condemned to pay alimony in the sum of $60 per month for the support of herself and her minor children during the pendency of the suit.

The regularity and legality of the proceedings prior to the rendition of the judgment appealed from are not questioned. Therefore, the sole issue presented to this court is one of fact.

The appellant has filed a motion in this court, with certain affidavits attached thereto, alleging newly discovered evidence, and asking, in the alternative, that the case be remanded for the hearing and taking of further evidence.

It will not be necessary to pass upon this motion, for the reason that plaintiff has not satisfactorily sustained the burden of proving his wife’s infidelity, but circumstances are established which, in our opinion, show probable cáuse for the institution of the suit. Therefore, the proper judgment in this case is one of nonsuit as to the demands of both litigants. The testimony is in direct conflict on all of the important facts. A majority of the witnesses, including the wife of the alleged corespondent, testified for the defendant, but the proof as a whole does not, in its present state, warrant the rejection of the plaintiff’s demands or the affirmance of the judgment appealed from.

A detailed recital of the testimony would' support the correctness of our conclusions, but it would needlessly reflect upon the character of the litigants.

For the foregoing reasons, it is decreed that the judgment appealed from be and it is avoided and that the demands of both the plaintiff and defendant be dismissed as m case of nonsuit; at appellee’s cost.
Exhibit 99(i)

                            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 J. C. Penney Funding Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 26, 2003 (the "Report"),  I,
Michael P. Dastugue,  Chairman of the Board 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.

DATED this 10th day of June 2003.

                                                /s/ Michael P. Dastugue
                                                ------------------------
                                                Michael P. Dastugue
                                                Chairman of the Board
                                                J. C. Penney Funding Corporation



                                       11
<page>
                                                                Exhibit 99(ii)

                            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 J. C. Penney Funding Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 26, 2003 (the "Report"),  I,
William J. Alcorn,  Vice  President  and  Controller  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.

DATED this 10th day of June 2003.

                                                /s/ William J. Alcorn
                                               --------------------------
                                               William J. Alcorn
                                               Vice President and Controller
                                               J. C. Penney Funding Corporation



                                       12
Global Amendment to definition of "change in control"



 Exhibit 10(oo) 
  
 Global Amendment to Definition of “Change in Control” or “Change of Control”

  
 The third paragraph (relating to reorganizations and mergers) of the
definition of the terms “Change in Control” and “Change of Control,” as the case may be, contained in the documents listed below is hereby amended in the form set forth on Exhibit A hereto (with such modifications to the
paragraph numbering and defined terms as shall be necessary to conform the definition to a particular plan or agreement): 
  

	1.	The Trust Agreement for Executive Deferred Compensation Plans No. 1 and 2 

  

	2.	The Trust Agreement for the Retirement Income Assurance Plan and the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan 

  

	3.	The Trust Agreement for the Executive Supplemental Plan 

  

	4.	The 1996 Long-Term Incentive Plan 

  

	5.	The Amended and Restated 1992 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan 

  









  
 Exhibit A 

 
 (c) Consummation of a reorganization, merger, statutory share exchange or
consolidation or similar corporate transaction involving the Company or any of its subsidiaries, a sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company, or the acquisition of assets or stock of another entity by the
Company or any of its subsidiaries (each, a “Business Combination”), in each case unless, following such Business Combination, (i) all or substantially all of the individuals and entities that were the beneficial owners of the Outstanding
Company Common Stock and the combined voting power of the then outstanding voting securities of the Company entitled to vote generally in the election of directors (the “Outstanding Company Voting Securities”) immediately prior to such
Business Combination beneficially own, directly or indirectly, more than 50% of the then-outstanding shares of common stock and the combined voting power of the then outstanding voting securities entitled to vote generally in the election of
directors, as the case may be, of the corporation resulting from such Business Combination (including, without limitation, a corporation which, as a result of such transaction, owns the Company or all or substantially all of the Company’s
assets either directly or through one or more subsidiaries) in substantially the same proportions as their ownership immediately prior to such Business Combination of the Outstanding Company Common Stock and the Outstanding Company Voting
Securities, as the case may be and (ii) at least a majority of the members of the board of directors of the corporation resulting from such Business Combination were members of the Incumbent Board at the time of the execution of the initial
agreement or of the action of the Board providing for such Business Combination.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 03, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 03, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0229. MICHAEL JOHN BARRETT v. REAGAN C BARRETT.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2018SUV845
#### Chester Leo Ederds v. State

No. 25599.

December 19, 1951.

Hon. S. H. Sanders, Judge Presiding.

*Ruff Wall,*Carthage, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Under an indictment charging the second offense of unlawfully while intoxicated operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway, appellant pleaded guilty before the court and *534his punishment was assessed at three years in the penitentiary. Thereafter, the execution of sentence was by the trial court suspended and the accused, for the term of such sentence, was placed upon probation under certain restrictions including commission of a like offense. Thereafter, upon motion of the state and after hearing, the trial court set aside judgment granting the probation and suspending the judgment and sentence of the court during such probation, and ordered the accused committed to the penitentiary to serve the sentence first imposed.

It is from the revocation of probation that this appeal is brought.

Neither bills of exception nor a statement of facts accompany the record, notwithstanding which appellant insists that the conviction for the first offense of drunk driving, upon which the state relied to make the instant offense a felony, was void because the court in which said conviction was had — that is, the county court of Panola County — was not legally in session at that time. This contention does not appear to have been urged at the time of the revocation of probation. Obviously, without a statement of facts or bills of exception exemplifying the erorr claimed, we have no way by which the contention can be appraised.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
EXHIBIT 12-1

                  PECO ENERGY COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                   SEC METHOD
                                     ($000)

                                                            9 MONTHS
                                                              ENDED
                                                            09/30/96

NET INCOME                                                  $398,896

ADD BACK:
- INCOME TAXES:
     OPERATING INCOME                                        273,249
     NON-OPERATING INCOME                                     (2,037)
                                                             -------
  NET TAXES                                                  271,212

- FIXED CHARGES:
     INTEREST APPLICABLE TO DEBT                             278,942
     ANNUAL RENTALS                                            6,412
                                                             -------
     TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                                     285,354

ADJUSTED EARNINGS INCLUDING AFUDC                           $955,462
                                                            ========
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                              3.35
                                                                ====
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

May 28, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-11319

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-80857-CV-KLR

CLEAVON L. ALLEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

CHARLES KING,

J. FORD, et al.

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(May 28, 2008)

Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Florida prison inmate, brought this action for damages under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 against the appellee police officers for allegedly using excessive
2

force in arresting him on August 26, 1997. The district court, acting sua sponte,

dismissed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) on the ground that his

claim is barred by Florida’s four-year statute of limitations. He now appeals the

court’s ruling.

There is no specific statute of limitations period for actions brought under §

1983. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 239, 109 S.Ct. 573, 576, 102 L.Ed.2d 594

(1989). Instead, the statute of limitations period for § 1983 claims is determined

by the state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims. Id. at 240-41. 

“Florida's four-year statute of limitations [period] applies to” § 1983 claims. 

Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 1283 (11th Cir. 2003).

Appellant’s § 1983 claim arose on August 26, 1997. He delivered his law

suit to prison officials for filing on September 6, 2006, nine years later. His claim

is time-barred.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6461

LEE WESLEY HOGAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief

District Judge. (CA-04-42-1)

Submitted: August 29, 2005 Decided: September 16, 2005

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lee Wesley Hogan, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Robert

David Goldberg, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

We note that as to Claim O, Hogan’s failure to specifically

object to the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition waives

appellate review as to that claim. See, e.g., Diamond v. Colonial

Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lee Wesley Hogan seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless 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, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Hogan 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. 
- 3 -

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2   Certification of the Principal Accounting 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 China RuiTai International Holdings Co. Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Gang Ma, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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/ Gang MaChief Financial Officer Date: August 14, 2009
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                     FORM 15

             Certification and Notice of Termination of Registration
    under 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Suspension of Duty
               to File Reports Under Sections 13 and 15(d) of the
                        Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                        Commission File Number 333-72459

                       CITICORP MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.
           (Issuer in respect of the REMIC Pass-Through Certificates)
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                         12855 North Outer Forty Drive
                           St. Louis, Missouri 63141
                                 (314) 851-6305
          (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including
            area code, of registrant's principal executive offices)

                     REMIC Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1999-5
            (Title of each class of securities covered by this Form)

                                 Not Applicable
   (Titles of all other classes of securities for which a duty to file reports
                      under Section 13(a) or 15(d)remains)

         Please place an X in the box(es) to designate the appropriate rule
provision(s) relied upon to terminate or suspend the duty to file reports:

      Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(i)       [ ]        Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(ii)      [ ]
      Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(ii)      [ ]        Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(i)       [ ]
      Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(i)       [ ]        Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(ii)      [ ]
      Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(ii)      [ ]        Rule 15d-6                [x]
      Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(i)       [ ]

Approximate number of holders of record as of the certification or
notice date: 36

      Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Citicorp Mortgage Securities, Inc. has caused this certification/notice to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned duly authorized person.


Dated as of: January 28, 2000                BY:   /s/ Michael J. Tarpley
                                                   --------------------------
                                                       Michael J. Tarpley
                                                       Assistant Secretary
Exhibit 32.1

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 this annual report on Form 10-K of Vitamin Shoppe, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 25, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Richard L. Markee, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Vitamin Shoppe, Inc.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 9, 2011



/S/  RICHARD L.
MARKEERichard L. MarkeeChief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board, Director(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Report.
**Exhibit 32.1.1**

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of OsirisTherapeutics, Inc., (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best ofeach officer’s knowledge that:

TheAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006(the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Kfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

| Date: March 26, 2007  |   | /s/ C. Randal Mills     |
|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                       |   | C. Randal Mills, Ph.D.  |
|                       |   | Chief Executive Officer |
| Date: March 26,  2007 |   | /s/ Cary J. Claiborne   |
|                       |   | Cary J. Claiborne       |
|                       |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request. This certification “accompanies” the Form 10-Kto which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whethermade before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.

----