alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WOODFIN v. PAUL, RICE & LEVY, Inc., et al.

No. 3386.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 20, 1951.

Jacob S. Landry, Guyton H. Watkins, and Jack J. Cousin, all of New Iberia, for appellant.

Welton P. Mouton, Lafayette, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Both plaintiff-appellant and defendants-appelleees have filed application for a rehearing.

In their application for rehearing, the defendants-appellees have assigned five alleged errors committed by us, viz: (1) In not sustaining their motion to dismiss the appeal; (2) in reversing the lower court *300on questions of facts; (3) “in completely-discounting the findings of the eminent orthopedic experts”; (4) in finding plaintiff partially disabled and (5) in failing to apply the ruling of the Supreme Court in Scott v. Hillyer, Dentsch, Edwards, Inc., 217 La. 596, 46 So.2d 914.

In reply to their first assignment of. error, we are of the opinion that we have not committed any error in our opinion for the reason that it is now well established that an appeal is favored and will not be dismissed except for good reasons and not merely upon technical grounds.

As to. the remaining assignment of errors, the assigned errors go to the merits of: .the case. After a thorough .reconsideration-of the case, we fail to see any merits in the assigned errors. Furthermore, it is our mandatory duty, in accordance with the present constitution, to consider the case both upon the law and the facts and to decide the case accordingly, and in the event we are of the opinion that the district court has erred, it is our duty to reverse the judgment and proceed to render the judgment which we feel that the evidence and the law justifies.

As to plaintiff-appellant’s application for rehearing, he avers that we should have granted him compensation for 400 weeks rather.than 300 weeks. Upon reconsideration of the case we are still of the firm opinion that under the facts of this case plaintiff is only partially permanently ■ disabled and therefore not entitled to compensation beyond 300 weeks.

Both applications are refused.
#### Fate CHIMP v. LE BLANC LUMBER CO. et al.

No. 3050.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1948.

Watson Blanche Fridge & Wilson, of Baton Rouge, for appellants.

Sanders Miller Downing & Rubin, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons this day handed down in the consolidated cases of Carter and Crimp v. LeBlanc Lumber Co. et al., La. App., 37 So.2d 471, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at defendants’ costs.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Susser Holdings Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 30,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mary E. Sullivan, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                             |  |    |  |                                                     
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------- |  | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 14, 2008 |  |  |  | SUSSER HOLDINGS CORPORATION
|                     |  |  |  |                            
|                     |  |  |  |                             |  | By |  | /s/    MARY E. SULLIVAN                             
|                     |  |  |  |                             |  |    |  | Mary E. Sullivan                                    
|                     |  |  |  |                             |  |    |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Bruce Brouillard,

Petitioner

v. Civil No. 05-246-SM

United States of America,

Respondent

O R D E R

Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate Sentence Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 on July 5, 2005.

Respondent shall file an answer or other pleadings on or

before August 12, 2005.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

July 12, 2005

cc: Peter E. Papps, Esq.

Bruce Brouillard, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00246-SM Document 2 Filed 07/12/2005 Page 1 of 1

Brouillard v. USA Doc. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
#### In the Matter of Frances Stearns, Petitioner, v Cesar Perales, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated January 21, 1988, which affirmed a determination of the New York City Department of Social Services reducing the petitioner’s food stamps allowance from $190 to $82 per month because she received $350 per month in rent assistance from her relatives.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff is a recipient of Federally subsidized food stamps which are administered by the New York State Department of Social Services through the New York City Department of Social Services. Eligibility for food stamp benefits is based on household income *(see,*7 USC § 2014 [d]; 7 CFR 273.9 [a]; 18 NYCRR 387.10; *Meyer v Lyng,*859 F2d 62, 63). With certain enumerated exclusions, household income includes all monetary payments to the household from any source *(see,*7 USC §2014 [d]; 7 CFR 273.9 [c] [1] [ii]; 18 NYCRR 387.11 [c] [2]; *see also, Matter of Lasoff v Blum,*85 AD2d 219, 222).

The Federal statute and regulations exclude "vendor payments” from the household income. "[Vjendor payments” are defined as payments that are not made directly to a household (7 USC § 2014 [d] [1]) but are paid to a third party for a household expense *(see,*7 CFR 273.9 [c]; 18 NYCRR 387.11). However, payments that are not made to a third party, but are made directly to the household, are to be counted as income to determine eligibility. It is undisputed that the money orders received by the petitioner from her relatives to pay her excess rent were not made payable directly to her landlord. Rather the blank money orders were endorsed by the petitioner and paid by her to her landlord. Thus, the payments do not fall within the definition of a "vendor payment”.

While this court is not unsympathetic to the petitioner’s plight, we are constrained by the explicit language contained in the regulations. This court is not empowered to rewrite the legislative scheme in accordance with the court’s conceptions of prudent public policy *(see, Ruhe v Bergland,*683 F2d 102). Thus, we conclude that the State Commissioner did not err in *393upholding the computation of the petitioner’s food stamp allowance containing an adjustment for the payments made to the petitioner by her relatives. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### Millard KEITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

Feb. 12, 1954.

Millard Keith, in pro. per., for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen; Asst. Atty. Gen. for appellee.

PER .CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of Norris v. State, 150 Fla. 686, 8 So.2d 493.

ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, HOB-SON and DREW, TT-, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          29,489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       4,993,234
<DEPRECIATION>                                 231,107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,083,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,943,416
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          138,988
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       267,343
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,172,415
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,083,621
<SALES>                                        153,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               161,387
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,538
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,501
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,018
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,958
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,958
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,113
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,845
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
Bill Roskin Stationery






                                                              March 14, 2005

[Insert Name and Address]



                 Re: Acceleration of "Underwater" Stock Options


Dear [insert first name],

              I am pleased to advise that, on March 8, 2005, the Compensation
Committee of Viacom's Board of Directors accelerated the vesting of a major
portion of your unvested stock options granted under the Company's Long-Term
Management Incentive Plans (LTMIP).

              The Committee felt it appropriate to require the Company's Section
16 officers to hold the shares acquired upon the exercise of these options until
their original vesting date or, if earlier, the executive's last day of
employment, other than shares needed to cover the exercise price and satisfy
withholding taxes.

              This acceleration does not apply to stock options granted since
the Company's new LTMIP was adopted on May 19, 2004 or granted under the
Company's "Fund the Future" program or stock options with an exercise price of
less than $38.

              Smith Barney (SB) has not yet updated its website to reflect this
acceleration but will do so shortly. Also, please be reminded that it is
Company policy that Section 16 officers are not permitted to exercise Viacom
stock options through the Company's program with SB. You must execute these
transactions through a broker selected by you.

              Of course, you should feel free to call me if you have any
questions.

                                                              Sincerely,



                                                              William A. Roskin
EXHIBIT 32.5

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 
of the United States Code

I, Caroline Dorsa, Chief Financial Officer of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of Public Service Electric and Gas Company on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Electric and Gas Company.



| | /s/ Caroline Dorsa                                                                     
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Caroline DorsaPublic Service Electric and Gas CompanyChief Financial OfficerMay 5, 2009



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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,974
<SECURITIES>                                       150
<RECEIVABLES>                                  161,545
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,064
<INVENTORY>                                    151,460
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               394,181
<PP&E>                                       3,199,713
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,354,324
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,351,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          290,441
<BONDS>                                        712,088
<COMMON>                                        32,722
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     912,771
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,351,014
<SALES>                                        803,016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               803,016
<CGS>                                          688,078
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  688,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,992
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,207
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,785
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     20,785
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Precision Castparts Corp. (the Company) for the fiscal period ended December 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William D. Larsson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 8, 2008                           
|                                                 
|/s/ William D. Larsson                           
|William D. Larsson                               
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
## NO. 12

- 11

- 00 0 83

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DONNIE RAY THOMAS

, § APPEAL FROM THE 114 TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. We have received the

trial court's certification showing that this is a plea bargain case and Appellant has no right to

appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d). The certification is signed by Appellant and his trial

counsel. Additionally, Appellant’s appellate counsel has notified us that based on the controlling

law, he is of the opinion that this court does not have jurisdiction of the appeal and therefore the

appeal must be dismissed. Acc ordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

.

Opinion delivered March 16 , 2011.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
* 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50249

A-98-CA-392-JN

AUSTIN TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONSTRUCTION, CO.,

doing business as ATS Electrical Contracts; FRED SHIN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

SVERDRUP FACILITIES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

December 13, 1999

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The court has carefully considered the appeal of Austin

Traffic Signal in light of the briefs, arguments of counsel and

pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no

reversible error of fact or law in the district court’s grant of

summary judgment. 

Appellant’s claim for negligent misrepresentation fails

in light of Federal Land Bank Ass’n of Tyler v. Sloane, 825 S.W.2d
2

439 (Tx. 1991). Because Sverdrup had free rein as a consultant to

AISD to recommend an electrical contractor, and because AISD could

accept the bid of whomever it chose or could have rejected any and

all bids, and because appellant was well aware of these facts, the

appellant could not justifiably rely upon representations or

omissions concerning the status of the bidding process.

With regard to appellant’s claims for defamation and

tortious interference with contractual relations, the district

court’s opinion is correct and dispositive of these issues.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 99.1

                          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 the Quarterly Report of PGI, Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I
Laurence A. Schiffer, 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 to the best of my knowledge:


(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/ Laurence A. Schiffer

    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Executive Officer
    May 15, 2003
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


                        Washington, D.C. 20549

                      ___________________________

                               FORM 10-Q

              Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15(d)

                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                   ________________________________

For the Quarter ended  September 30,1999 Commission File Number  1-5447


                  PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD

    Pennsylvania                             25-6002536
(State of Organization)            (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

                       Telephone -(304)926-1124*

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

     Yes   X        No

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's
classes of common stock, as of the close of the period covered by this
report.

          1,510,000 shares of beneficial interest, without par value.


                      ___________________________

* Notices and communications from the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the registrant may be sent to Robert A. Hamstead, Secretary and
Treasurer, #2 Port Amherst Drive, Charleston, WV 25306.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Karin Sneider

v. Civil No. 05-cv-154-JD

UNUM Life Insurance

Company of America

PROCEDURAL ORDER

Karin Sneider filed a complaint on May 3, 2005, against UNUM

Life Insurance Company of America, which provided insurance to

employees of Collins & Aikman, Sneider’s former employer. 

Sneider alleges a single claim against UNUM, in which she seeks

to recover benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security

Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). UNUM filed its answer

on May 26, 2005. No further activity is reflected in the docket.

On June 1, 2005, a new rule, Local Rule 9.4, became

effective, and provides procedures for ERISA cases. Although

this case was already pending when the rule became effective, it

would be appropriate to proceed under Rule 9.4. Therefore, UNUM

shall serve and file a copy of the administrative record within

twenty days of the date of this order. LR 9.4(a). Thereafter, 

Case 1:05-cv-00154-JD Document 5 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 2
2

the parties shall follow the procedures and deadlines provided in

Rule 9.4

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

November 16, 2005

cc: Byrne J. Decker, Esquire

Vicki S. Roundy, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00154-JD Document 5 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 2