alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
226 La. 303

#### FLUKER FARMS, Inc. v. Ruthy Mae JAMES.

No. 41881.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 8, 1954.

Ponder & Ponder, New Orleans, for defendant-relator.

Fannie E. Burch, Amite, for plaintiff-ap-pellee in Court of Appeal, and defendant in application for writ of review.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

We granted certiorari in this case to review the judgment of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, dismissing the defendant’s appeal following plaintiff-appellee’s motion to dismiss on the ground that, the appeal being devolutive, the judgment sought to be appealed has long since become executory and power to prevent execution thereof has been lost.

The suit is one for partition by licitation of a certain five-acre tract of land in Tangipahoa Parish, the plaintiff claiming ownership of a two-thirds interest therein, and alleging defendant’s ownership of the remaining one-third interest. By way of answer the defendant asserted full ownership and resisted plaintiff’s claims. Following trial on the merits there was judgment decreeing ownership in the proportions set out in plaintiff’s petition; ordering that the property be sold and that the proceeds of the sale be referred to the Clerk of Court to complete said partition. Defendant was granted a suspensive and/or devolutive appeal, but only the devolutive appeal was perfected, and some three months after filing of the appeal bond the property was advertised for sale. Following certain delays, not here pertinent, the property was sold, the judgment executed, and the full amount of the bid was paid into the Registry of Court, where the funds are now held pending final decision. Upon that showing being made, the Court of Appeal ordered the appeal dismissed. See 71 So.2d 709.

*312The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the suit in its entirety, obviously overlooked the fact that questions are involved which are still subject to review, i. e., the validity of appellant’s assertion of full ownership. All parties claiming an interest in the property being parties to this litigation, and the appellant not having perfected a suspensive appeal within the prescribed time, the judgment became execu-tory, La.Code of Practice, Article 578, and when the sale was actually consummated pursuant to the judgment, such sale was valid, and the appellant’s rights against Fluker Farms, Inc., are relegated to the proceeds of the sale. Continental Securities Corp. v. Wetherbee, 187 La. 773, 175 So. 571; Hartson v. Flaty, 192 La. 782, 189 So. 134; Wetherbee v. Lodwick Lumber Co., 194 La. 352, 193 So. 671, and cases therein cited.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeal dismissing defendant’s appeal is annulled and set aside, the motion to dismiss is overruled, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.

PONDER, J., recused.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS

               REGISTRY MAGIC AND SYNERGEX INTERNATIONAL SIGN LOI

        DEAL SPEEDS TIME TO MARKET FOR REGISTRY'S MOBILE VOICE OFFERINGS

CONTACT:                                          CONTACT:
Bruce Carlsmith                                   Mary Cate O'Malley
REGISTRY MAGIC                                    SYNERGEX
Voice:   (561) 367-0408                           Voice:   (916) 635-7300
E-mail: bruce.carlsmith@registrymagic.com         E-mail: MARY.CATE@SYNERGEX.COM
Web: WWW.REGISTRYMAGIC.COM                        Web:WWW.SYNERGEX.COM


BOCA RATON, FLA.--DEC. 16, 1999--Registry Magic of Boca Raton, Fla., and
Synergex International, of Gold River, Calif., today announce the signing of a
Letter of Intent that would result in a merger of the two entities. Financial
details of the agreement were not released. The merger is subject to, among
other things, execution of a definitive agreement and approval of each company's
shareholders.

"This event will make it possible for Registry Magic to more quickly provide
applications that bridge Internet and voice solutions," said Bruce Carlsmith,
CEO of Registry Magic. "Increasingly, taking our applications to vertical
markets requires integration with business applications. Synergex has been
focused on the integration and enablement of vertical business applications for
over 10 years and provides a strong complement to our voice recognition
expertise."

Besides the benefits of Synergex's application integration expertise, Registry
Magic gains access to a management team with the experience to greatly speed the
completion and marketing of existing and new products. Synergex also brings a
strong base of over 500 independent software vendors covering a range of
vertical markets including healthcare, resort management, banking and
manufacturing.

Synergex is a privately held company that develops and markets Synergy/DE, an
integrated set of high-productivity application development tools for building,
integrating, and deploying enterprise applications, an increasing number of
which are being delivered via Web interfaces.
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 07/12/05 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.1


    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
       (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                              UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned officers of the registrant certifies, to the best of his knowledge,
that the registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2002 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Form 10-Q, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



Dated: November 14, 2002                     /s/ Kari Stefansson
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Kari Stefansson
                                            Chairman, President, Chief Executive
                                            Officer


Dated: November 14, 2002                     /s/ Lance Thibault
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Lance Thibault
                                            Chief Financial Officer and
                                            Treasurer
[No. 34218.

Department Two.

October 25, 1957.]

#### John Finley *et al., Respondents,*v. The City of Puyallup, *Appellant.**1*

*Leslie N. Jochimsen,*for appellant.

*Campbell & Manning,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 316 P. (2d) 895.

Rosellini, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding damages for flooding of the plaintiffs’ basement by reason of the defendant’s neglect. The action was tried to the court, and no error has been assigned to any of the court’s findings.

Rule on Appeal 43, 34A Wn. (2d) 47, as amended, effective January 2, 1953, provides in part:

> “In appeals from all actions at law or in equity tried to the court without a jury, the findings of fact made by the court will be accepted as the established facts in the case unless error is assigned thereto.”

This rule has been followed without exception. *Richert v. Handly,*50 Wn. (2d) 356, 311 P. (2d) 417; *Swanson v. Solomon,*50 Wn. (2d) 825, 314 P. (2d) 655; *Judd v. Bernard,*49 Wn. (2d) 619, 304 P. (2d) 1046.

The facts found by the court are as follows: The property of the plaintiffs, a dwelling house with a partial basement, located at 2002 west Pioneer, Puyallup, was flooded on December 11, 1955, by water coming through a window or windows from floodwater which had covered the yard to a *205considerable depth. The water rose in the basement to and above the lower level of the floor joists of the house, causing the joists to become saturated with water and the framework of the house to become damaged by water.

The flooding and damage to the plaintiffs’ property were caused by the failure of the defendant to install pumps of sufficient capacity at its pumping station on west Pioneer avenue and the failure of the city to provide an adequate by-pass to Clarks Creek in event of pump failure at the station.

As a direct and proximate result of the flood, plaintiffs incurred the following damage: Furnace repair and replacement in the sum of $250, and permanent warping and damage to the floor joists and building in the sum of $300, a total damage of $550.

On January 5, 1956, the plaintiffs caused their written claim for damages to be served upon the defendant.

Judgment for the plaintiffs was entered accordingly.

There is no contention that the judgment is not supported by the findings. The only errors assigned pertain to the admission of certain evidence regarding the amount of damages and the probative value of that evidence. These matters inhere in the findings, which cannot be disturbed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Hill, C. J., Donworth, Foster, and Hunter, JJ., concur.
exv10w38



 






Exhibit 10.38




February 25, 2005




Jim Davis

[address]

[address]



Dear Jim:




Vitria Technology, Inc. is pleased to offer you a position as Executive Vice President, Operations.
You will report to me and have responsibilities for Professional Services, Marketing, Human
Resources, Legal, and Sales Operations. Your annual base salary will be $300,000.00 with an MBO
target bonus of $150,000.00. Your annual 2005 MBO target bonus amount will be a prorated amount
and is guaranteed at 50%. You will be reimbursed for actual relocation expenses not to exceed
$30,000.00. You agree that your relocation package will be repaid to Vitria in full, if you resign
without good reason or are terminated for cause within the first 12 months of your employment with
Vitria. This offer is subject to a satisfactory result, determined in the Company’s sole
discretion, from the Company’s background investigation to which you have consented.



Vitria Technology, Inc. will grant to you under its Equity Incentive Plan an option to purchase
250,000 shares of Common Stock. Upon approval of the Board or the appropriate sub-committee of the
Board, you will be notified in writing regarding the terms and conditions of the grant.



As a Vitria employee, you will be expected to abide by Vitria’s policies and procedures, and sign
and comply with the Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement. Your employment at Vitria
Technology is at will. This means that either you or Vitria Technology, Inc may terminate your
employment at any time for any reason, with or without cause or advance notice.



All new employees must pass an employment verification procedure before they are permitted to work.
This procedure has been established by Vitria Technology and requires every individual to provide
satisfactory evidence of his/her identity and legal authority to work in the United States within
twenty-four (24) hours of his/her start date.



This letter and the Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement constitute the entire and
final agreement between you and Vitria regarding your employment and supersede any other
agreements, representations or promises. You understand that this agreement cannot be changed or
amended except in writing signed by you and by an authorized company representative.



Your expected start date will be March 7, 2005. We are looking forward to having you come join the
team. Please sign below to indicate your acceptance of this offer and return a signed copy to
Allen Chin, VP of Human Resources, by fax at 408-212-2729 as soon as possible, but no later than 7
days from the date of this offer.



Sincerely yours,




/s/ Dale Skeen

Dale Skeen

Chief Executive Officer



Acceptance /s/ Jim Davis




Date February 25, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1106 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1106

  To exclude certain veterans' compensation and pension amounts from 
consideration as adjusted income for purposes of determining the amount 
of rent paid by a family for a dwelling unit assisted under the United 
                      States Housing Act of 1937.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2001

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To exclude certain veterans' compensation and pension amounts from 
consideration as adjusted income for purposes of determining the amount 
of rent paid by a family for a dwelling unit assisted under the United 
                      States Housing Act of 1937.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' Equity Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM INCOME.

    Notwithstanding section 3 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 
for purposes of determining the amount of rent paid by a family for 
occupancy of a public housing dwelling unit or a dwelling unit assisted 
under section 8 of such Act, the adjusted income of a family shall not 
be considered to include any amounts received by any member of the 
family from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as--
            (1) compensation, as defined in section 101(13) of title 
        38, United States Code;
            (2) dependency and indemnity compensation, as defined in 
        section 101(14) of such title; or
            (3) pension, as defined in section 101(15) of such title.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.a



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of DataJungle Software Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2004 (the Form 10-QSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.



|Dated: August 13, 2004 |  | /s/Edward Munden
Edward Munden
President & Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-QSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
jfourtlj Court of

gntomo,

May 28,2014

No. 04-13-00619-CV

In the Interest of T.K.D-H., Child

Trial Court Case No. 2005-EM5-00646

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal and has determined that oral

argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and factual issues presented in the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. Therefore, all requests for oral argument are denied, and the

cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on July 8, 2014, to the following panel: Chief

Justice Stone, Justice Marion, and Justice Barnard. All parties will be notified of the Court's

decision in this appeal in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 48.

Either party may file motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that

oral argument will not significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and factual issues

presented in the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. Such motion should be filed within ten (10)

days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on May 28, 2014.

Camerine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, have hereunto set my hand and a/fixed the seal o/the said

court on this May 28,2014.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6567** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ROBERT FENN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. ( 1:12

- cr - 00510

- JCC

- 1 )

Submitted : September 26, 2014 Decided: October 1, 2014

Before KING, GREGORY, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. James W. Hundley, BRIGLIAHUNDLEY, P.C., Vienna, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Alicia J. Yass, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Lindsay A. Kelly, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appelle e.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Fenn appeals from the district court ’s order denying his motion for a new trial in his c riminal conviction for receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252(a)(2) (2012), and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) (2012)
. After careful review, we affirm the denial of Fenn’s motion for a new tri a l. We review the district court ’ s denial of Fenn ’ s motion for a new tria l for abuse of discretion. United States v. Bartko , 728 F.3d 327, 334 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied , 134 S. Ct. 1043 (2014) . Generally speaking, the district court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for a new trial. United States v. Perry , 3 35 F.3d 316, 320 (4th Cir. 2003). The court may vacate its judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires. Fed. R. Crim
. P. 33(a). To obtain a new trial due to newly discovered evidence,
Fenn must show (1) the evidence is newly discovered, (2) the evidence could not have been discovered at trial through the exercise of due diligence, (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching, (4) the evidence is material, and (5) the evidence pro bably would result in acquittal at a new trial. United States v. Chavis , 880 F.2d 788, 793 (4th Cir. 1989).3 We have reviewed the record and conclude that the newly discovered evidence likely would not have resulted in acquittal. We thus conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fenn’s motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this c ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 178 (Friday, September 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21288]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Availability of Non-Exclusive, Exclusive License or Partially 
Exclusive Licensing of U.S. Patent Concerning ``Continuous Disreefing 
Apparatus for Parachute''

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 37 CFR Part 404.6, announcement is made of 
the availability for licensing of US Patent No. US 7,416,158 entitled 
``Continuous Disreefing Apparatus for Parachute'' issued August 26, 
2008. This patent has been assigned to the United States Government as 
represented by the Secretary of the Army.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeffrey DiTullio at U.S. Army 
Soldier Systems Center, Kansas Street, Natick, MA 01760, Phone: (508) 
233-4184 or e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b1fbd4d7d7c3d4c89ff5d8c5c4ddddd8def1c4c29fd0c3dcc89fdcd8dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9cd6f9fafaeef9e5b2d8f5e8e9f0f0f5f3dce9efb2fdeef1e5b2f1f5f0">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any licenses granted shall comply with 35 
U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-21288 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>