alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### D. H. HOLMES CO., Limited, v. KRON.

No. 13868.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 15, 1932.

Frymire & Ramos, R. R. Hagen, and C. L. Stiffell, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Henry J. Rhodes, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee*

WESTERFIELD, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dissolving a seizure of defendant’s wages under garnishment process. The lower court held that defendant was a laborer and his earnings exempt from seizure under article 644, Code Prac., as amended by Act No. 79 of 1876 and Act No. 184 of 1918.

Defendant is employed by the United Shoe Machinery Company at a weekly salary of $19. His duties, as stated by himself, consist of keeping 'the warehouse “where we work at clean” and opening “boxes of stuff that comes in and I stack it upon the shelf.” He also testified that he helped the shipping clerk and, when he is told to, makes out or-' der blanks for the shipping clerk and “slips” for the delivery of packages.

The contention of plaintiff is that, in helping the shipping clerk and in making out orders for delivery of packages, defendant must be considered to be a clerk and not a laborer.

In Commercial Credit Company v. Parrett, 6 La. App. 423, where we held that a motorman was a laborer, the subject is reviewed at length. We said in that case that the fact that a laborer in the discharge of his duties must exert some mental effort does not affect his status as a laborer and render his wages subject to seizure. In other jurisdictions, it has been held that a shipping clerk, an overseer, a forwarding clerk, a private secretary, a teacher, and a telephone operator are laborers within the meaning of acts exempting the wages of laborers from garnishment. See authorities cited in Commercial Credit Co. v. Parrett, supra.

In. the instant case defendant received $19 a week for opening boxes and putting their contents on shelves and for helping the shipping clerk occasionally. It seems clear to us that the trial court properly held that he was a laborer within the meaning of our laws exempting laborers’ wages from seizure under garnishment process.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### Mrs. Meytris HERLEVIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. L. WEATHERLY, et al., Defendant-Appellees.

No. 7419.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 23, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 5, 1950.

Thompson, Thompson & Sparks, Monroe, attorneys for appellant.

Fink & Fink, Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, Monroe, attorneys for appellees.

*482HARDY, Judge.

This is a suit for damages in the nature of personal 'injuries sustained by plaintiff as the result of an intersectional automobile collision. After trial there was judgment in favor of defendants rejecting plaintiff's demands, from which plaintiff has appealed.

This cause was' consolidated, for trial and for purposes of appeal, with Nos. 7417 and 7418 on the docket of this Court. 43 So.2d 478; 43 So.2d 481. The facts at issue are fully set forth in our opinion in the suit of Weatherly v. Herlevic et al., No; 7417 on the docket of this Court, this day- decided. 43 So.2d 478. No- point of law is involved in a consideration of this case, and for the reasons set forth in the opinion' referred to above, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.
Exhibit 99.1


         Written Statement of the President and Chief Executive Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned
President and Chief Executive Officer of Avenue Entertainment Group, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



                                                   Cary Brokaw
May 16, 2003


<PAGE>
174 La. 334

#### STATE v. O’REAR.

No. 31690.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 29, 1932.

Thomas W. Robertson, of Shreveport, for appellant.

*495Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., E. E. Sehowalter, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert E. Kennon, Dist. Atty., of Minden (James O’Niell, Sp. Asst to Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the State.

LAND, J.

Defendant has appealed to this court from a conviction and sentence in the lower court for selling intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes.

Since the record contains neither bill of exception, motion to quash, motion in.arrest of judgment, nor assignment of errors, and, as there is no error patent upon the face of the record, there is nothing for this court to review.

The conviction and sentence are therefore affirmed.
SHARON KELLER

PRESIDING JUDGE

LAWRENCE E. MEYERS

CHERYL JOHNSONMIKE KEASLER

BARBARA P. HERVEY

ELSA ALCALA

BERT RICHARDSON

KEVIN P. YEARY

DAVID NEWELL

JUDGES

Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

Houston County County Clerk

P O Box 370

Crockett, TX 75835

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

December 9, 2015

FILE COPY

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

(512)463-1551

SIAN SCHILHAB

GENERAL COUNSEL

(512)463-16(1(1

Re: JOHNSON, TERENCE

CCA No. PD-0228-14

Trial Court Case No. 12-06-00189-CR

COANo. 12-12-00425-CR

The Court of Criminal Appeals has this day issued a mandate for the above-referenced and styled

case number. The mandate will be transmitted electronically only.

***COUNTY CLERK***

MANDATE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Pursuant to Rule 51.2(a)(1) T.R.A.P, please acknowledge receipt of the mandate of the Court of

Criminal Appeals in the above numbered and styled case via this email link.

Sincerely,

Abel Acosta, Clerk

cc: 12th Court Of Appeals Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Houston County County Attorney (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Amber N. Bewley (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

District Clerk Houston County (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Joshua Thomas Liles (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Supreme Court Building, 201 West 14th Street, Room 106, Austin, Texas 78701

Website www.txcourts.gov/cca.aspx
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Austin, Texas

MANDATE

TRIAL COURT NO. 12-06-00189-CR

COURT OF APPEALS NO. 12-12-00425-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF HOUSTON COUNTY - GREETINGS:

Before our COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, on OCTOBER 7, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

review, revise or reverse your Judgment between:

TERENCE JOHNSON

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

CCRA NO. PD-0228-14

was determined; and therein our said COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS made its order in these words:

"This cause came on to be heard on the STATE'S Petition for Discretionary Review, and the same

being inspected, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the Petition for

Discretionary Review be GRANTED.

The judgments of the court of appeals and trial court are AFFIRMED, in accordance with the Opinion

ofthis Court, and that this decision be certified below for observance."

WHEREFORE, We command you to observe the order of our said COURT OF CRIMINAL

APPEALS in this behalf and in all things to have it duly RECOGNIZED, OBEYED AND EXECUTED.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE SHARON KELLER, Presiding Judge

of our said COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS,

with the Seal thereof annexed, at the City of Austin,

on this day Wednesday, December 9, 2015.

FILE COPY

RLE: NCOw,cv oc appeals

12T &)&* Appeals 3isfigt_

ABEL: ACOSTA, Clerk

By: Deana Williamson, Deputy Clerk
#### Jules S. MOTTY, Doing Business as Motty Ice Works, v. Dallas BONIN et al.

Nos. 2173, 2240.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 12, 1940.

On Rehearing May 23, 1941.

Writ of Error Refused June 30, 1941.

O. H. Deshotels, Jr., and Frank W. Summers, both of Abbeville, for appellant.

Davidson & Davidson and C. Manly Horton, Jr., all of Lafayette, for appellees.

LE BLANC, Judge.

For the reasons stated in the opinion this day handed down in the suit of Rudolph E. Boullion v. Dallas Bonin et al., 2 So.2d 535, consolidated with this suit.

It is ordered that the judgment appealed from be and the same is hereby avoided, reversed and set aside and it is now further ordered that there be judgment herein in favor of the plaintiff, Jules S. Motty, doing business as Motty Ice Works, and against the defendants, llallas Bonin, Kaplan Rice Mills, Inc., and Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, in solido, in the full sum of $400 with legal interest from date of judicial demand until paid, and for all costs of suit.

On Rehearing.

For the reasons this day assigned in this case consolidated with that of Rudolph E. Boullion v. Dallas Bonin et al., 2 So.2d 535, it is ordered that our former decree in the case of Jules S. Motty, doing business as the Motty Ice Works v. Dallas Bonin, Kaplan Rice Mills, Inc., and Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, be and the same is now re-instated and made the final judgment of this court.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1315

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain

hydroelectric projects located in the State of West Virginia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 29, 2001

Mr. MOLLOHAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction

of certain hydroelectric projects located in the State of

West Virginia.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY

4 REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECTS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period

6 specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16

7 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to Federal Energy

8 Regulatory Commission projects numbered 6901, 6902,

9 and 7307, the Commission may, at the request of the

10 project licensee, and after reasonable notice, in accordance
2

•HR 1315 IH

1 with the good faith, due diligence, and public interest re2 quirements of that section and the Commission’s proce3 dures under that section, extend the time period required

4 for commencement of construction of the project con5 cerned for 3 consecutive 2-year periods.

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Each extension under sub7 section (a) shall take on the date of the expiration of the

8 extension issued by the Commission under section 13 of

9 the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) of the period re10 quired for commencement of construction of the project

11 concerned.

12 (c) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the

13 period required for commencement of construction of a

14 project described in subsection (a) has expired before the

15 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall

16 reinstate the license for that project effective as of the

17 date of its expiration and the first extension authorized

18 under subsection (a) for that project shall take effect on

19 the date of such expiration.

Æ
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 146

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls Historic District in Paterson, New

Jersey, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. PASCRELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit of

the National Park System, 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. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Great Falls Historic

5 District Study Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 146 IH

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY REGARDING

2 GREAT FALLS HISTORIC DISTRICT,

3 PATERSON, NEW JERSEY.

4 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

5 (1) GREAT FALLS HISTORIC DISTRICT.—The

6 term ‘‘Great Falls Historic District’’ means the

7 Great Falls Historic District in the city of Paterson,

8 New Jersey, established as an historic district by

9 section 510 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands

10 Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–333;

11 110 Stat. 4158; 16 U.S.C. 461 note).

12 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means

13 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Di14 rector of the National Park Service.

15 (b) STUDY.—As soon as practicable after funds are

16 made available to carry out this section, the Secretary

17 shall commence a study regarding the suitability and feasi18 bility of further recognizing the historic and cultural sig19 nificance of the lands and structures of the Great Falls

20 Historic District through the designation of the Great

21 Falls Historic District as a unit of the National Park Sys22 tem.

23 (c) STUDY PROCESS AND COMPLETION.—Section

24 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)) shall

25 apply to the study required by this section.
3

•HR 146 IH

1 (d) SUBMISSION.—The Secretary shall submit to the

2 Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives

3 and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of

4 the Senate a report describing the results the study.

5 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

6 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are nec7 essary to carry out this section.

Æ
#### The Dayton Power & Light Co. *v.*Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

(No. 23893

Decided June 21, 1933.)

*141
      *Mr. Edwin P. Matthews, Mr. John E. Mullin, Mr. Charles P. Pfarrer*and *Mr. Chester J. GerJcin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John W. Brisker,*attorney general, and *Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*for defendant in error.

By the Court.

The principles of law necessary to the decision of this case have been considered in the case of the *Columbus Gas $ Fuel Company*v. *Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, ante,*109, this day decided by this court. These two cases are closely allied and interrelated and much of the record in the Dayton case was stipulated from the record in the Columbus case.

Applying the reasoning and conclusions of law announced in the Columbus case to the instant case we find no error in the conclusions of the Public Utilities Commission, and that the conclusions of fact found by the commission are justified by the evidence. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the findings of the Public Utilities Commission are neither unreasonable nor unlawful, and the same are hereby affirmed.

*Order affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Aleen, Stephenson and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Bevis, J., not participating.
2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-25-2007

Padilla v. Beard

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-2900

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Padilla v. Beard" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1740.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1740
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 06-2900

________________

GEORGE A. PADILLA,

Appellant

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary Department

of Corrections; Superintendent ROBERT

SHANNON, SCI Frackville; Unit Manager

MS. MIRANDA, SCI Frackville

____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-00478 )

District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo

_____________________________________

Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

October 13, 2006

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

 

ORDER AMENDING OPINION 

It is HEREBY ORDERED that the Not Precedential Opinion filed in this case on

November 16, 2006, be amended as follows:

On page 4, line 89 – the word “not” should be inserted after the word “does” and

before the word “implicate”, to read “application of the H-Code policy does not implicate

a liberty interest protected by the Due ...”

For the Court,

 /s/ Marcia M. Waldron 

Clerk

Dated: January 25, 2007
#### Paul M. BARBER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EL DORADO LUMBER COMPANY, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4190.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 29, 1932.

For former opinion, see 139 So. 29.

Jackson & Smith, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Kennon & Kitchens, of Minden, for appel-lee.

PALMER, J.

The lower court rendered judgment in this case in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $4,-190.50, with interest at the legal rate from judicial demand until paid. Defendant appealed, and plaintiff answered the appeal asking for an increase in the judgment to the amount sued for $14,930.

In a former opinion of this court, reported in 139 So. 29, in which the law and the evidence were fully discussed, the judgment of the lower court was affirmed. On application of the defendant, appellant, a rehearing was granted, and the case is now before us on rehearing.

We have again very carefully reviewed and considered the law and the evidence in the case, only to conclude that our former decree is correct, so it is accordingly reinstated.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

AMY JACOBY,

Defendants.

8:23CR126

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Extend Pretrial Motion 

Deadline. (Filing No. 61). The motion is unopposed by the government. For good cause shown, 

the Court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant's Motion to Extend Pretrial Motion Deadline (Filing No. 61), is 

granted.

2) Pretrial motions shall be filed by January 2, 2024.

3) In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this motion and outweigh the interests of the 

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s date and January 

2, 2024, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant this motion would deny 

counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into 

account the exercise of due diligence, and the novelty and complexity of the case. 

The failure to grant this motion might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B). Failing to timely object to this order as provided under 

this court’s local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time 

should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.

Dated this 27th day of October, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00126-RFR-MDN Doc # 62 Filed: 10/27/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 110
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023458
<NAME> AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XXII LTD PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      10,150,301
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,977
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,175,278
<PP&E>                                       1,532,983
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,686)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,695,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          386,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,308,928
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,695,575
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               389,743
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  182,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                207,108
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            207,108
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   207,108
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    18.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    18.84
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 10 a.m. 

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present. 

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. 

Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no earlier notice was possible. 

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 23, 2008 will be: 

Formal orders of investigation; 

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; 

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; and 

Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

Dated: September 17, 2008. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-22081 Filed 9-19-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P