alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION 390, Petitioners, v. MIAMI RETAIL GROCERS, Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Dec. 17, 1954.

Albion & Greenfield, Miami, and Vivian L. Schaeffer, Miami Beach, for petitioners.

Daisy Richards, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Two propositions are presented in the petition for writ of certiorari in this case. The first is that the lower court erred in the entry of the injunction and the second is that the court erred in its failure to require from the plaintiff below a bond in accordance with the provisions of Section 64.03, F.S.A.

 As to the propriety of the entry of the original injunction and the continuance of the same in force after the taking of testimony, the record accompanying the petition for certiorari fails to establish that the election was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the statute. Therefore, the lower court was not in error in entering the injunction and continuing it in force after the hearing on the motion to dismiss. On the other hand, there is no showing in this record that the plaintiff in the court below was unable to give an appropriate bond. In the absence of such showing, the court below should not have entered the injunction or continued the same in force after the taking of testimony on the motion to dissolve.

Certiorari should issue and the chancellor is hereby directed to dissolve the injunction or require the posting of an injunction bond in an amount sufficient to indemnify petitioner for such costs and damages as it might incur or suffer in the event *492it ultimately be determined that *it*was wrongfully enjoined or restrained by said temporary injunction. Lewis v. Lewis, Fla., 66 So.2d 260.

TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, and MATHEWS, DREW and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
#### NORVELL v. AIAVOLASITI.

No. 18835.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 21, 1948.

H. L. Midlo, of New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellee.

Austin Anderson, of New Orleans, for defendant and appellant.

McBRIDE, Judge.

Plaintiff, as assignee of a bill of Dr. Carl Rabin for professional services rendered, brings this suit against defendant for the sum of $300, the balance due on account. Defendant denied that Dr. Rabin treated him or that he rendered to him any professional services, and denied liability. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant has appealed.

The petition alleges that plaintiff “is assignee of Dr. Carl Rabin who rendered professional services to said defendant described on the itemized account hereto attached and made part hereof. * * * ” The itemized bill referred to is for $300 for “professional services rendered.”

Dr. Rabin testified that he did not treat defendant, and attempted to show that the bill covered services rendered to his married daughter and son-in-law, at defendant’s request and upon his promise to pay the bill. Defendant’s counsel made the following objection to the testimony:

“I object to any evidence going to show that the doctor treated anybody else but Mr. Aiavolasiti. It is alleged in the petition that he treated the defendant and not any third person.”

The judge a quo overruled the objection and permitted Dr. Rabin to testify, in which ruling he was clearly in error.

The petition and itemized bill reflect that the physician’s services were rendered to the defendant, and under this cause of action he had not the right, over the timely objection of defendant, to show that his services were rendered to third persons. Plaintiff’s counsel argues that the allegation of the petition does not indicate that the services were rendered to defendant, but merely for defendant, and that he was entitled to show that the services to the two mentioned members of defendant’s family were rendered “for the defendant.” We cannot agree with this contention, as the only construction that can be placed upon the allegations of the petition and the accompanying bill is that the defendant owes for medical treatment accorded him.

Proof must correspond with allegations, and recovery cannot be had on a cause of action not alleged, where there is objection to the evidence on that ground timely made. In Simon v. Duet, 177 La. 337, 148 So. 250, 253, the Supreme Court said :

> “No citation of authority is necessary to support the propositions that a plaintiff cannot recover on a cause of action not alleged and that he cannot prove that which he does not allege.”

We said, in Cambas v. Burney et al., *8*La.App. 206: “Proof must correspond with the allegations.”

*435For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and it is now ordered, adjudged and decree that plaintiff’s demand be dismissed as of non-suit; plaintiff to pay all costs.

Reversed.
Exhibit 31.a  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, David Morris, certify that: (1)I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Blink Logic Inc.;  (2)Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  (3)Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operation and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods represented in this report;  (4)The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c)Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  (5)The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting.  /s/David Morris David Morris President & CEO Date: November 16, 2007
---

B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks Year
                  Estimated volume (billions of dollars)
                  Share of outstanding farm production loans (percent)Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q41992
          82
          14
          20
          29
          18
          .237
          .039
          .062
          .083
          .0501993
          54
          7
          16
          5
          26
          .155
          .020
          .049
          .014
          .0691994
          69
          10
          11
          15
          33
          .187
          .026
          .032
          .037
          .0821995
          51
          -2
          14
          13
          25
          .131
          -.004
          .039
          .032
          .0611996
          95
          16
          27
          24
          30
          .240
          .039
          .070
          .058
          .0711997
          93
          6
          19
          19
          50
          .230
          .014
          .049
          .045
          .1121998
          87
          4
          15
          24
          45
          .198
          .008
          .036
          .051
          .0951999
          126
          18
          37
          35
          36
          .280
          .040
          .086
          .078
          .0802000
          108
          11
          17
          34
          45
          .259
          .027
          .041
          .075
          .0982001
          308
          67
          53
          140
          48
          .656
          .142
          .118
          .294
          .1012002
          221
          40
          50
          58
          73
          .471
          .085
          .114
          .124
          .1572003
          n.a.
          34
          35
          48
          n.a.
          n.a.
          .074
          .080
          .108
          n.a. Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported
amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign results for large banks that
report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal
definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: December 30, 2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stephen Miner

v.

Grafton County Department of Corrections,

Superintendent, et al.

Civil No. 06-cv-242-JD

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated November 8, 2006, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

December 5, 2006 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Stephen Miner pro se

Donald E. Gardner, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00242-JD Document 14 Filed 12/05/06 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 36 Filed 06/21/06 Page 1 of 14Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 36 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 14Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 36 Filed 06/21/06 Page 3 of 14Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 36 Filed 06/21/06 Page 4 of 14Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 36 Filed 06/21/06 Page 5 of 14Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 36 Filed 06/21/06 Page 6 of 14Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 36 Filed 06/21/06 Page 7 of 14Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 36 Filed 06/21/06 Page 8 of 14Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 36 Filed 06/21/06 Page 9 of 14Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 36 Filed 06/21/06 Page 10 of 14Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 36 Filed 06/21/06 Page 11 of 14Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 36 Filed 06/21/06 Page 12 of 14Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 36 Filed 06/21/06 Page 13 of 14Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 36 Filed 06/21/06 Page 14 of 14
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                      0001023877
<NAME>                                   Goung Hei Investment Co., Ltd.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1
<CURRENCY>                                                   US Dollars

<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-1993
<PERIOD-START>                                              JAN-01-1993
<PERIOD-END>                                                JUN-30-1993
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                                0
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      0
<PP&E>                                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                        2
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 0
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                             17
<OTHER-SE>                                                         (15)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                          2
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      0
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        14
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    (14)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                (14)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       (14)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0





</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-30240

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEVEN DUANE VUTERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CR-90-A

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1998

Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steven Duane Vutera appeals the district court’s denial of

his “Motion to Change ‘Crime of Violence’ Status in Defendant’s

B.O.P. Records.” He argues that the district court erred in

holding that his argument was foreclosed by Venegas v. Henman,

126 F.3d 760, 765 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1679

(1998). We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the

parties and hold that Vutera’s was an unauthorized motion and the

district court lacked the jurisdiction to consider it. See
No. 98-30240

-2-

United States v. Gabor, 905 F.2d 76, 76 (5th Cir. 1990).

Vutera’s motion was, in effect, a habeas corpus petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 that must be filed in the judicial

district in which he is incarcerated. See Venegas. We do not

suggest that Vutera refile his motion in the United States

District Court in the district in which he is incarcerated as a

habeas petition since the issue of custody reduction is a matter

of discretion with the Bureau of Prisons. Venegas. 

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-103-PB

Sherry Roderick

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

October 3, 2006 trial in the above case, citing a conflict with

counsel’s trial docket. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and in order to allow the

parties additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from October 3, 2006 to December 5, 2006. 

In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00103-PB Document 17 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on November

21, 2006 at 3:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

October 3, 2006

cc: Harry Batchelder, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00103-PB Document 17 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32





AMASYS CORPORATION





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 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Amasys Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge that:





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





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








November 10, 2009/s/ C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.President and Chief Executive Officer
25

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of outstanding real estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1994...... 10 1 1 3 6 .048 .003 .003 .013 .026

1995...... 12 0 3 6 4 .055 -.001 .011 .027 .016

1996...... 7 0 1 2 4 .031 .000 .003 .009 .017

1997...... 16 -1 0 3 14 .064 -.003 -.001 .010 .054

1998...... 6 -1 3 0 5 .022 -.004 .009 .000 .016

1999...... 15 0 3 5 7 .051 -.001 .011 .015 .022

2000...... 12 -12 3 8 14 .037 -.037 .009 .022 .040

2001...... 42 10 9 5 17 .123 .030 .027 .014 .049

2002...... 35 8 6 5 16 .097 .022 .017 .014 .041

2003...... 32 4 6 8 14 .082 .010 .015 .021 .034

2004...... 18 1 5 2 10 .044 .003 .012 .005 .021

2005...... n.a. 2 11 n.a. n.a. n.a. .005 .024 n.a. n.a.

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
#### Valence ADAM v. PICCIOLA BROS. et al.

No. 943.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Feb. 8, 1932.

Harvey Peltier, of Thibodaux, and Daly & Hamlin, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Howell *&*Deramee, of Thibodaux, for appel-lees.

MOUTON, J.

For the reasons given in the case of Alexander J. Sandrass and wife v. Picciola Brothers et al. (La. App.) 139 So. 725, the judgment rejecting plaintiff’s demand herein appealed from is affirmed.
#### Ledrow JAMES v. STATE.

No. 31720.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A.

June 10, 1935.

Martin *&*Berry, of New Hebron, for appellant.

W. D. Conn, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

COOK, Justice.

Appellant was indicted and convicted in the circuit court of Simpson county of the crime of unlawfully possessing a distillery, commonly called a still, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of three years.

For a reversal of this cause appellant relies, first, upon the decision of the court in the companion case of Little v. State (Miss.) 159 So. 103, wherein it was held that certain testimony was inadmissible, for the reason that it had been obtained by means of an unlawful search of the home and premises of the appellant therein. That ease has no application here, for the reason that it does not appear that there was any search of any property belonging to or under the control of the appellant. The still near which the appellant was arrested was in the open woods, and it was not shown that he owned the land or premises on which it was located or had any interest whatever therein; and consequently he cannot complain of any alleged trespass *thereon.*Falkner v. State, 134 Miss. 253, 98 So. 691.

The appellant was arrested .about thirty yards from the still as he was approaching the same, and we do not think the evidence is sufficient to show that he was in possession *750of the still in question; and for that reason the peremptory instruction requested by him should have been granted. The judgment of the court below will therefore be reversed and the appellant discharged.

Reversed, and appellant discharged.