alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
215 La. 304

#### STATE v. SALONE.

No. 39364.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 25, 1949.

Wellborn Jack -and Ashley J. Gold, both of Shreveport, for defendant-appellant.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edwin L. Blewer, DiSt. Atty., of- Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

The defendant, Asa Salone, was convicted of murder without .capital punishment and sentenced to life imprisonment in the penitentiary. He has appealed from the conviction and sentence. ■

Two bills of exception were taken to the ruling of the trial court, during the course of the trial, permitting the State to bring out on cross-examination from the defendant that he had been arrested on more than one occasion since, the commission of the alleged offense.’ One of the bills was taken at the time of the ruling and the other taken to the overruling of a motion for a new trial predicated on the same ground.

Counsel for the defendant, contends that the defendant may be cross-examined only concerning arrests prior to the alleged offense and that permitting the State to bring out on cross-examination the subsequent arrests was prejudicial error.

The pertinent part of Article 495 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows : “ * * * provided, always, that a witness, whether he be the defendant or not, may be compelled to answer on cross-examination whether or not he has ever been indicted or arrested and how many times.”

Counsel 'takes the position that the numerous cises cited'under the article of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with arrests prior to an alleged offense and that the question here presented has never-been directly passed on by this Court.

It is apparent from a mere reading of this provision of the Code of Criminal Pro*474cedure that it applies to arrests prior to the time of the cross-examination. It is significant that it is stated in this provision that the person under cross-examination may be compelled to answer whether he has *ever*been arrested and how many times. There is no language in this provision to indicate a restriction of its application solely to arrests prior to the commission of the alleged offense. If the lawmakers had intended otherwise, some language would have been used to indicate such intent.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and senteñce are affirmed.

O’NIELL, C. J., takes no part
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
THOMAS F. NEENAN, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________

2013

- 5147

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:11

- cv

- 00733

- EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

W ALLACE L. T AYLOR , Law Offices of Wallace L. Taylor, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, argued for plaintiff

- appellant.

B ARBARA E. T HOMAS , Trial Attorney, Commercial Li tigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defenda nt

appellee. With her on the brief were S TUART F. D ELERY
, Assistant Attorney General, B RYANT G. S NEE , Acting Director, and S TEVEN J. G ILLINGHAM , Assistant Director.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE
, L INN
, and O’M ALLEY
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 15, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
Exhibit 35.1

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(SM)


                       REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance

I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transaction listed below and I certify:

a)    A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
      its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made
      under my supervision.

b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
      below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
      agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

c)    None


                                By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------
                                    Robert M. Abramian
                                    First Vice President
                                    Home Loan Servicing
                                    Investor Reporting
                                    Indymac Bank


                                By: /s/ Barbara Perez
                                    ----------------------
                                    Barbara Perez
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Indymac Bank



Prepared for:   Deutsche Bank

Date:           February 28, 2007

Ref:            675 - RAST 2006-A6



                                                             www.indymacbank.com


             460 Sierra Madre Villa Ave., Pasadena, CA 91107   Tel: 626.535.5555
IA 

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 116

To recognize the rights of consumers to use copyright protected works, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 7, 2002

Mr. COX introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

JOINT RESOLUTION

To recognize the rights of consumers to use copyright 

protected works, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Joint Resolution may be referred to as the 

5 ‘‘Consumer Technology Bill of Rights’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF RIGHTS. 

7 It is the sense of Congress that, with respect to all 

8 electronic media in United States commerce, consumers 

9 who legally acquire copyrighted and non-copyrighted 
2

•HJ 116 IH 

1 works should be free to use these works in non-commercial 

2 ways. The enumeration of rights in section 3, which shall 

3 be known as the Consumer Technology Bill of Rights, sets 

4 forth the rights of all Americans to personal control of 

5 information and entertainment content they have lawfully 

6 acquired and from which they do not intend to profit. 

7 SEC. 3. ENUMERATION OF RIGHTS. 

8 The following are the rights of consumers in legally 

9 acquired copyrighted and non-copyrighted works: 

10 (1) Users have the right to record legally ac11 quired video or audio for later viewing or listening 

12 (popularly referred to as ‘‘time-shifting’’). 

13 (2) Users have the right to use legally acquired 

14 content in different places (popularly referred to as 

15 ‘‘space-shifting’’). 

16 (3) Users have the right to archive or make 

17 backup copies of their content for use in the event 

18 that the original copies are destroyed. 

19 (4) Users have the right to use legally acquired 

20 content on the electronic platform or device of their 

21 choice. 

22 (5) Users have the right to translate legally ac23 quired content into comparable formats. 
3

•HJ 116 IH 

1 (6) Users have the right to use technology in 

2 order to achieve the rights enumerated in para3 graphs (1) through (5).

Æ
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 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned
officers of Rand Capital Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that: The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2018 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained
in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:
August 7, 2018  /s/ Allen F. GrumAllen F. Grum, President (Chief Executive Officer)
 Dated: August 7, 2018  /s/ Daniel P. PenberthyDaniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer(Chief Financial Officer)
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 20 23

- 2985 LT Case No s

. 2012

- CF

- 032555

- A 2012

- CF

- 057952

- A 2012

- CF

- 039441

- A 2012

- CF

- 032556

- A 2012

- CF

- 039508

- A 2012

- CF

- 057954

- A 2012

- CF

- 032560

- A 2012

- CF

- 057955

- A

_____________________________
B OBBY N ELSON , III
, Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County

. Stephen G. Henderson , Judge

. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Darnelle Paige Lawshe, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Krist en L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach
, for Appellee.

June 11, 20242 P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.

M AKAR , L AMBERT , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March

8 , 2022
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00669

- CV

CAROL MCGEHEE , Appellant

V.
ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 333rd District Co u rt

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 65389

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed October 7, 2 021 . On February 22, 2022, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.
We dismiss the appeal

. PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Justices Jewell, Zim merer, and Hassan.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 112 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 112

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 1, 2002

 Mr. Young of Florida introduced the following joint resolution; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 107-229 is 
further amended by striking the date specified in section 107(c) and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``October 11, 2002''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         793,888
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  176,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,000
<INVENTORY>                                    117,892
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,223,398
<PP&E>                                      15,481,909
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,024,492
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,680,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          507,380
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,071,610
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,680,815
<SALES>                                        473,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               504,043
<CGS>                                          320,955
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  460,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,078
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,444
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,472
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             41,472
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,472
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7087 

To require inns, hotels, motels, and other establishments that provide lodging 

to transient guests to include all mandatory fees and other charges 

in the advertised rental rates for such lodging, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2022 

Mr. GOSAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require inns, hotels, motels, and other establishments 

that provide lodging to transient guests to include all 

mandatory fees and other charges in the advertised rental rates for such lodging, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LODGING FEE DISCLOSURES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—A person who operates an inn, 

5 hotel, motel, or other establishment that provides lodging 

6 to transient guests shall include all mandatory fees and 

7 other charges in any advertised rental rate for such lodg8 ing. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7087 IH

1 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) does not require the 

2 inclusion in an advertised rental rate of any tax, fee, or 

3 other charge assessed, or required to be assessed, by a 

4 government entity. 

5 (c) ENFORCEMENT.— 

6 (1) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRAC7 TICES.—A violation of this section shall be treated 

8 as a violation of a regulation under section 

9 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act 

10 (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)) regarding unfair or decep11 tive acts or practices. 

12 (2) POWERS OF COMMISSION.—The Federal 

13 Trade Commission shall enforce this section in the 

14 same manner, by the same means, and with the 

15 same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all 

16 applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade 

17 Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incor18 porated into and made a part of this section. Any 

19 person who violates this section shall be subject to 

20 the penalties and entitled to the privileges and im21 munities provided in the Federal Trade Commission 

22 Act. 

23 (d) MANDATORY DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

24 ‘‘mandatory’’ means, with respect to a fee or other charge 

25 assessed in connection with the rental of lodging, that the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7087 IH

1 fee or other charge must be paid as a condition of renting 

2 such lodging. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IIA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 70

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 25, 2001

Received

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2002, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 107–44 is further amended by striking
2

HJ 70 RDS

1 the date specified in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu

2 thereof ‘‘November 16, 2001’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 25,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
#### WALL v. UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. et al.

No. 5299.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Jan. 5, 1937.

Dhu Thompson, of Monroe, for appellant.

Sholars & Gunby and Shotwell & Brown, all of Monroe, and Madison, Madison & Fuller, of Bastrop, for appellees.

DREW, Judge.

Plaintiff instituted this suit to be declared the owner of one-half of all royalties under a certain mineral lease owned by the United Gas Public Service Company, and his ownership thereof is denied by defendants. In article IS of plaintiff’s petition, he alleged that the value of his royalty rights was more than $2,000. This article is denied in toto by defendant.

On trial of the case it developed that there was some production of gas on this lease. There is no evidence in the record to show the value of the royalties sued for by plaintiff. Plaintiff’s demands were rejected below and he has perfected an appeal to this court.

We are not certain that we have jurisdiction of this case. If the value of the royalties claimed by plaintiff is as alleged by him, we have no jurisdiction and a judgment rendered by us would be a nullity. We realize that as a general rule the amount claimed by plaintiff is the test of our appellate jurisdiction, unless it appears that the claim is “padded” for the purpose of giving us jurisdiction. Constitution of 1921, art. 7, § 10; O’Shee v. Chaudoir, 154 La. 517, 97 So. 796. But in this case, the value of the royalties ■ claimed by plaintiff and as fixed by him is denied by defendant. It therefore evolves itself into a question of fact on which no evidence was introduced.

In order that we might be sure of our jurisdiction in the case, we deem it advisable to remand it to the lower court for the purpose of taking testimony as to the value of the royalties in dispute; and it is so ordered.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 69 Considered and Passed House (CPH)]

  1st Session
H. J. RES. 69

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 17, 2001

     Mr. Young of Florida introduced the following joint resolution

                            October 17, 2001

Committee on Appropriations discharged; which was considered and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 107-44 is 
further amended by striking the date specified in section 107(c) and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``October 31, 2001''.
                                 <all>
```
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 00423

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023

- 005672

- 1
Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion



### R

ASHAAD 

### A LLEN 

### , Appellant

V



### . M ID



### - A MERICA 

### A PARTMENTS DBA 

### MAA W ILLOW 

### C REEK 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT Appellant ’ s brief was due on February 28, 2024. On March 13, 2024, we notified appellant that his brief had not been filed as the appellate rules r equire. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless , within ten days, appellant filed with the court a n appellant ’ s brief
and a n accompanying motion reasonably explaining the brief’s untimely fil ing and why an extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We
have received no response. Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38. 8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).
Per Curiam
Delivered : Ap ril 11, 2024
## THE STATE OF TEXAS
MANDATE

TO THE 196TH DISTRIC T COURT OF HUNT COUN TY, GREETINGS:
Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 4th
day of August , A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was
determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Devon Ray Davis, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 15

- 00032

- CR

Trial Court No. 22886

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment
of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the assessment of
$2,337.00 in attorney fees

. As modified, the judgment of the tr ial court is affirmed.
We note that the appellant, Devon Ray Davis, has adequately indicated his inability to pay
costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this

behalf, and i n all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.
WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with
the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 29th day of September , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,078,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  391,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (349,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    769,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          31,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (31,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,058,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                     12,457,000
<COMMON>                                       532,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (27,429,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,058,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             480,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (515,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (515,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.13)
<FN>
<F1> CURRENT ASSETS AND CURRENT LIABILITIES VALUES
     ARE ZERO BECAUSE OF AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.


</TABLE>