alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
182 La. 898

#### YOUNG v. TURNER *et*al.

No. 32994.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1935.

S. I. Foster, of Leesville, for appellant.

A. B. Cavanaugh, of Leesville, and E. W. & P. N. Browne, of Shreveport, for appellees.

ODOM, Justice.

On June 2, 1934, the trial court granted appeals in this case returnable to this court on June 25. An incomplete transcript was filed by the appellant in this court on June 28. A printed calendar mailed to all interested parties by the clerk on April 8, 1935, shows that the case was set for hearing in this court on May 9. On that date counsel for appellee appeared in open court and moved that the appeal be dismissed on the ground that the transcript was incomplete. • Counsel for appellant made no personal .appearance on that date, but filed a motion to continue the case in order that the transcript might be completed. This court continued the case to June 4, up to which time the transcript was not completed, and on that date the case was submitted on motion filed by appellee to either dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment.

The appeal must be dismissed. The transcript as filed is incomplete in that it does not include copies of the minutes of the district court showing the proceedings had in that court, that it does not contain a record of the testimony taken at the trial of the case, and that the .transcript as filed is not certified to as correct by the clerk of the district court.

Act No. 234, p. 739, of 1932 is an act “To regulate the dismissal of appeals by Appellate Courts.” That act provides that “whenever an appellant files an incomplete transcript * * * or whenever because of any error on the- part of the Clerk of Court or of the trial Judge, or for any purely technical reason, a motion to dismiss his appeal is filed either by an ap-pellee, third person or intervenor, charging and setting forth as grounds for dismissal any of the above reasons, no appellate court shall maintain said motion to dismiss, or dismiss the 'appeal, unless it first allow to the appellant at least two additional days, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, to cure and correct any and all the informalities and irregularities alleged and complained of in the motion to dismiss; and such appellant may, before the date on which the motion to dismiss is fixed for trial, cure and correct any objection, irregularity or informality charged or alleged to exist in the motion to dismiss.”

Appellee’s motion to dismiss is based upon the ground that the transcript is incomplete. Counsel for appellant has been given ample time, more than thirty days, in which to complete the transcript, after having been notified of the defects complained of.

The transcript not having been completed, the motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained. It is therefore ordered that the appeal be -dismissed.
| FRB Price Index, Computer Storage Devices |         |
|-------------------------------------------|---------|
| Year                                      | Index   |
| 2002                                      | 1017.31 |
| 2003                                      | 681.91  |
| 2004                                      | 424.25  |
| 2005                                      | 293.20  |
| 2006                                      | 193.39  |
| 2007                                      | 134.47  |
| 2008                                      | 100.00  |
| 2009                                      | 71.09   |
| 2010                                      | 51.52   |
| 2011                                      | 40.10   |
| 2012                                      | 36.98   |
| 2013                                      | 28.13   |
| 2014                                      | 21.39   |
| 2015                                      | 15.67   |
| 2016                                      | 11.02   |
| 2017                                      | 9.75    |
| 2018                                      | 7.50    |
| 2019                                      | 4.74    |
| 2020                                      | 4.41    |
| 2021                                      | 3.88    |
| 2022                                      | 3.54    |
| 2023                                      | 2.53    |
|                                           |
| Last Update: February 8, 2024             |
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 183 (Friday, September 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54395-54396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21887]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR08-29-000]


Northern Illinois Gas Company; Notice of Petition for Rate 
Approval

September 11, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 3, 2008, Northern Illinois Gas 
Company (Nicor Gas) filed an application for rate approval pursuant to 
sections 284.123(b)(2) and 284.224 of the Commission's regulations. 
Nicor Gas requests that the Commission approve: (1) An increase in its 
currently effective rates for services provided pursuant to Nicor Gas' 
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP92-481-000; and (2) to make 
certain revisions to its Statement of Operating Conditions.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered 
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, 
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or 
motion to intervene, on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone 
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on 
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before 
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#89cfccdbcac6e7e5e0e7ecdafcf9f9e6fbfdc9efecfbeaa7eee6ff"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="397f7c6b7a76575550575c6a4c4949564b4d795f5c4b5a175e564f">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

[[Page 54396]]

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 19, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21887 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 179 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21424]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NM-920-1310-08; TXNM 118212]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
TXNM 118212

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Class II provisions of Title IV, Public Law 97-451, 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for 
reinstatement of oil and gas lease TXNM 118212 from the lessee, 
Woodward Development LLC, for lands in Houston County, Texas. The 
petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due 
since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes B. Ortiz, BLM, New Mexico 
State Office, at (505) 438-7586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: No valid lease has been issued that affect 
the lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and 
royalties of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year, and 16\2/3\ 
percent, respectively. The lessee paid the required $500.00 
administrative fee for the reinstatement of the lease and $166.00 cost 
for publishing this Notice in the Federal Register. The lessee met all 
the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Sections 
31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We 
are proposing to reinstate lease TXNM 118212, effective the date of 
termination, June 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of 
the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.
    Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

    Dated: September 9, 2008.
Lourdes B. Ortiz,
Land Law Examiner, Fluids Adjudication Team.
[FR Doc. E8-21424 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
**EXHIBIT 32**

** **

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

 

 

 

 

**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

 

In connection with the amended Annual Reportof Solei Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles O. Scott, Chief Executive Officer and PrincipalExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

Dated: April 10, 2019

 

/s/Charles O. Scott

__________________________________________

Charles O. Scott,

Chief Executive Officer & Principal ExecutiveOfficer

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Order entered September 16, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01146-CR

JOSEPH WAYNE HUNTER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-56295-R

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s September 15, 2015 pro se motion for an extension of 

time to file a response to the Anders brief he asserts counsel filed. Appellate counsel filed a brief 

raising issues on the merits, not an Anders brief. Appellant is not entitled to hybrid 

representation. Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s pro se motion to file . See Rudd v. State, 

616 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981).

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order by first-class mail to Joseph Hunter 

and by electronic transmission to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<CIK>                                          0000081100                   
<NAME>                                         PUGET SOUND ENERGY
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      3,358,067
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    249,179
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         382,403
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 618,550 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,608,199
<COMMON>                                       845,606
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      450,763
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            35,369
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1,331,738
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          173,162
<PREFERRED>                                    95,265
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           1,524,739
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             246,500
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 112,241
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  57,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 1,067,554
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  4,608,199
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      1,314,950
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           68,478
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     1,047,646
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     1,116,124
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        198,826
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             10,234
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 209,060
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       102,466
<NET-INCOME>                                   106,594
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    9,784
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  96,810
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       116,694
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      89,537
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         275,479
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.14
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Ramada Worldwide Inc .

V .

LBM Financial LLC, et al .

06-cv-205-JD

ORDE R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated May 23, 2007, no objection having been filed .

SO ORDERED.

September 11, 2007

cc: Bethany Appleby, Esq.

John-Mark Turner, Esq.

Peter Cowan, Esq .

Daniel Luker, Esq.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00205-JD Document 53 Filed 09/11/07 Page 1 of 1
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. B ALDOM ER O VALDEZ-C ASTENEDA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10029

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-01808-GM S M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Anc e r L. Ha gge rty , Distric t Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d Nove m

be r 19, 2013 * ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TR OTT, a nd THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. B a ldom e ro Va lde z -C a ste ne da a ppe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 41-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for 

# FIL ED NOV 25 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Anc e r L. Ha gge rty , Se nior Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ore gon, sitting by de signa tion. *** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re e ntry

of a re m ove d a l ie n, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm . Prior to filing a

n a nswe ring brie f, the gove rnm e nt file d a m otion for lim

ite d re m and. B e c a

use the gove rnm e nt doe s not a lle g e tha t thedistric t c ourt c om

m itte d any e rror, we de ny

the gove rnm e nt’ s m otion. Va lde z -C a ste ne da a sse rts va rious c la im s of proc e dura l e rror. W e re vie w for pla i n e rror, se eUnite d State s v . Vale nc ia-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd find none . The re c ord re fle c ts tha t thec ourt did not tre at theGuide line s a s m andatory , a d e quate ly c onside re d these c tion 3553(a ) se nte nc ing fa c tors a

nd Va lde z -C a ste ne da ’ s va

rianc e argum e nts, a

nd suffic ie ntly

e xpla ine d

the se nte nc e to pe rm it a ppe lla te re v ie w. S

e eUnite d State

s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba

nc ). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 0 0 2 9 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RICKY NATHANIEL WASHINGTON,

Appellant, 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-20-00150-CR

Appeal from the

27th District Court

of Bell County, Texas

(TC# 76481)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal and 

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore grant 

Appellant’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. We further order this decision be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020.

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,720
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,492
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,602
<INVENTORY>                                      9,897
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,315
<PP&E>                                         393,735
<DEPRECIATION>                                 178,941
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 298,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                   (229,352)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (229,271)
<SALES>                                         26,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               147,711
<CGS>                                           15,221
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,929
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (31,324)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,920)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,033)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,953)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,953)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.98)



</TABLE>
192 La. 297

#### STATE v. SCRUGGS et ux.

No. 35194.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 1939.

/!S. R. Holstein, of Winnsboro, for appellants.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen. (David M. Ellison, of Baton Rouge, successor to Mr. Porterie), James O’Connor, First Asst. Atty. Gen., and Jesse C. McGee, Dist. Atty., of Harrisonburg, for the State.

ROGERS, Justice.

The defendants, Vernon Scruggs and May Scruggs, are husband and wife. They were indicted for the larceny of goods of the value of more than $100 and were’ convicted of larceny of goods of a value less than $100. After verdict and before sentence, the district attorney filed a bill of information charging the defendants as second-offenders, and due proof having been made of their prior convictions, they were sentenced to serve not less than two years nor more than four years in the state penitentiary. Defendants appealed from their conviction and sentence.

The appeal was submitted to this Court on February 10, 1939, and it now appears that the appellants escaped from the parish jail on or about February 12, 1939, and have become fugitives from justice. The State of Louisiana, through the district attorney, has, therefore, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The facts relating to the appellants’ escape from prison and showing that they are fugitives from justice are sustained by the sworn statement of the sheriff of the parish of Catahoula and are not denied.

It is well settled that if a person convicted of a criminal offense appeals and breaks jail and escapes, his appeal will be dismissed. State v. Butler, 132 La. 597, 61 So. 682; State v. Lacroute, 134 La. 3, 63 So. 603; State v. Rogers, 150 La. 1080, 91 So. 518.

The appeal herein is dismissed.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice

(dissenting).

The conviction and sentence appealed from in this case are absolutely null because the verdict of the jury did not denote the grade of the offense of which the -defendants were found guilty; hence the judge could not know what sentence he should or might impose. My opinion is that we should either recognize and pronounce the nullity of the conviction and sentence, or remand the case to the district court for a determination of the question whether the defendants have forfeited the right of appeal. If they are fugitives from justice, and if they should be apprehended, they could not be compelled to suffer imprisonment on an invalid conviction and sentence. Their breaking jail and escaping, — if they have broken jail and escaped, — could not Validate their conviction or the sentence that has been imposed upon them.
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 Sanchez Computer Associates, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers, certifies, that to the best of their knowledge, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/ FRANK R. SANCHEZ                                       |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Frank R. Sanchez
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002 |  | 
|/s/ TODD A. PITTMAN                                        |  | 
|Todd A. Pittman
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002  |  | 

---

QuickLinks