alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frank M. DANCE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dr. Henry H. MIDDLETON, Jr., et al. Defendants-Appellants.

No. 8210.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 1, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1955.

Morgan, Baker & Skeels, Shreveport, for appellants.

Hal R. Henderson, Goff & Caskey, Arcadia, for appellee.

•HARDY, Judge.

This is a, companion suit to the case of Carter v. Middleton, No. 8209, La.App., 76 So.2d 594. The cases were consolidated for trial and the facts involved are identical.

• The plaintiff in this case, Frank M. Dance, was the owner of the property which was leased to Carter and brought this *599suit to recover the value of the Barn, a structure some 40 by 30 feet, allegedly valued at $1,500, together with an additional sum of $260 alleged to have been the value of 1,000 feet of lumber, a loading rack and a pecan tree, which were also destroyed in the fire. There was judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,460, from which the defendants have appealed.

For the reasons assigned in the 'case of Carter v. Middleton, No. 8209, La.App., 76 So.2d 594, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

AYRES, J., recused.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CALTON, INC.
     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


        In connection with the annual report of Calton, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Laura
A. Camisa, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:  February 24, 2005       By: /s/ Laura A. Camisa
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Laura A. Camisa
                                    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                    (PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING 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

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...... 17 2 11 4 0 .039 .005 .024 .009 .000

2006...... 20 2 6 1 12 .042 .003 .012 .002 .023

2007...... n.a. -3 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. -.006 .000 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.
B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures
________________________________________________________________________________

Year                       Q1          Q2          Q3          Q4          Total
________________________________________________________________________________

1984......    |             3           7          10          12             32
1985......    |            12          21          17          18             68
1986......    |            14          14          21          16             65
1987......    |            22          19          12          16             69
1988......    |            11           6          12           7             36
1989......    |             5           7           5           5             22
1990......    |             3           5           6           3             17
1991......    |             2           2           3           1              8
1992......    |             1           1           1           4              7
1993......    |             1           2           2           0              5
1994......    |             0           0           0           0              0
1995......    |             0           0           0           0              0
1996......    |             0           2           0           0              2
1997......    |             0           0           0           1              1
1998......    |             0           0           1           0              1
1999......    |             0           1           0           0              1
2000......    |             0           0           0           0              0
2001......    |             0           0           0           0              0
2002......    |             1           0           0           1              2
2003......    |             0           1           0           0              1
2004......    |             0           1           0           0              1
2005......    |             0           0           0           0              0
________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.  Industrial banks and
mutual savings banks also are excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.

29
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 5Federal Reserve Bank of: RichmondFilings received during the week ending August 16, 2008FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION                                                                                             InvestmentBank of America Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina, to make an investment in a foreign organization pursuant to Section 211.9(b)(3) of Regulation K.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not applicableBANK OF MARION, THE                                                                                                     PremisesThe Bank of Marion, Marion, Virginia, to increase its investment in bank premises.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not applicableJOHN MARSHALL BANK                                                                                                      * BranchJohn Marshall Bank, Falls Church, Virginia, proposes to establish branches at 12165 Darnestown Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland, and 818 South King Street, Leesburg, Virginia.Newspaper: 08/25/2008Federal Register: Not applicableNBRS FINANCIAL BANK                                                                                                     * BranchNBRS Financial Bank, Rising Sun, Maryland, proposes to establish a branch located at 20 Craigtown Road, Port Deposit, Maryland.Newspaper: 08/21/2008Federal Register: Not applicable
#### Ernest Emil MILLER v. COMMERCIAL STANDARD INSURANCE CO. et al.

No. 2526.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 27, 1943.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1942.

See 14 So.2d 313.

Lewis & Lewis, of Opelousas, for appellant.

Durrett & Hardin, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the opinion in the consolidated cases of Ernest Emil Miller, Mrs. Ethel H. Miller, and Mrs. Margaret B. Hill v. Commercial Standard Insurance Co. et al., La.App., 13 So.2d 733, this day handed down, it is ordered that the judgment in the case of Ernest Emil Miller v. Commercial Standard Insurance Co. et al. be amended by increasing the amount of the award from the sum of $2,588.19 to the sum of $3,046.61, and as thus amended, the judgment is affirmed at the cost of defendants in both courts.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ROBERT J. MURPHY,

Petitioner

v.

MICHELE FRANK A/K/A MICHELE 

MARINARI, WESTPORT INS., FRANK 

WILLIAMS, O'DONNELL HAGNER AND 

WILLIAMS, P.C. AND ROBERT MORRIS 

AND MORRIS & CLEMM, P.C.,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 475 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of March, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
(January 12, 2006)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nicklas Williams, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 805]

Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered August 1, 2002, upon a verdict convicting defendant of two counts of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was charged with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, arising from two sales of cocaine, two days apart, to a confidential informant. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of both counts and sentenced to two consecutive terms of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years. He appeals.

The jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Weighing the conflicting evidence and the strength of inferences that may be drawn therefrom *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), while viewing the evidence in a neutral light, and affording appropriate deference to the credibility determinations made by the jury *(see People v Beverly [Priest],*5 AD3d 862, 865 [2004], *lvs denied 2*NY3d 796, 804 [2004]), we find no basis upon which to disturb the verdict. On both occasions in which defendant sold the confidential informant a substance which was stipulated at trial to be cocaine, the controlled buys were witnessed by police officers. Prior to each purchase, both the informant and his car were searched. While defendant highlights testimonial inconsistencies regarding the search of the informant’s trunk, these variances are not so significant to cause a reversal *(see People v Ford,*20 AD3d 816, 818 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 828 [2005]). Moreover, we find no merit to the challenge to the informant’s testimony based upon a failure of the police to conduct a body cavity search of him prior to the purchase. His testimony presented a credibility issue for the jury to resolve and defendant’s conviction was not solely dependent upon that testimony.

Nor was defendant deprived of a fair trial when County Court *876permitted, among other things, testimony by the purchaser that he had been threatened by defendant. The resolution of the People’s *Molineux*application, made prior to trial, was proper. Moreover, as to the claim that County Court should have offered a limiting instruction regarding that threat, no such request was made to County Court. Recognizing that the issue was unpreserved for our review, were we to address this issue, we would have found the limiting instruction unnecessary since the threat was directly attributable to defendant (see *People v King,*175 AD2d 266, 266 [1991], *lv denied*79 NY2d 828 [1991]).

The imposition of consecutive sentences was proper since the sales were not in “close temporal proximity” to each other *(People v Holmes,*304 AD2d 1043, 1045 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 642 [2003]). We have considered defendant’s other assertions of error including his challenge to the duration of the sentence and assertion of prosecutorial misconduct, and find them to be without merit.

Crew III, J.P., Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
No. 72-6276.

#### Colbert *v.*Apex Carpet Finishers, Inc., et al.

Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

George Blaisdell

v. Civil No. 07-cv-00390-JL

City of Rochester, et al.

 O R D E R

The defendant’s motion to dismiss and for costs and fees

(document no. 21) is granted in part and denied in part. The

plaintiff shall pay the costs and fees associated with the

plaintiff’s scheduled depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

30(d)(2). The defendant shall file, within 7 days of this order,

an accounting of costs and fees associated with the plaintiff’s

scheduled depositions, which shall be subject to court approval.

The case is STAYED (except for the conduct/proceedings

described below) until further order from the court. The stay

will be lifted only upon certification by defendant’s counsel

that the plaintiff has appeared at her office for deposition, has

been deposed, and that full payment of costs and fees has been

made in satisfaction of this order. If such certification has

not been received within 60 days of this order, the case will be

dismissed for lack of prosecution. 

Case 1:07-cv-00390-JL Document 24 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: April 8, 2010

cc: George Blaisdell, pro se

Catherine M. Costanzo, Esq.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00390-JL Document 24 Filed 04/08/10 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

# CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
Report), the undersigned, Denise Hawkins, as Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
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.

/s/ Denise Hawkins 
Denise Hawkins
Vice President and Controller
(Principal Financial Officer)
Date:  May 12, 2004

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
<Page>



                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                              THE DRESS BARN, INC.
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                                (All 100% Owned)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      State of
          Subsidiary                Incorporation
---------------------------------   -------------
<S>                                 <C>
Dress Barn Credit Management, LLC     Virginia

Dunnigan Realty, LLC                  Delaware

D.B.X. Inc.                           New York

D.B.R., Inc.                          Delaware

The Dress Barn, Inc. of
New Hampshire, Inc. (**)            New Hampshire

Raxton Corp. (**)                   Massachusetts

(**) Inactive Subsidiary
</TABLE>


                                      F-24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In re Tyco International, Ltd.

Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 1335) CASE NO. 02-md-1335-B

 Teacher Retirement System

 of Texas, et al. v. 

 Tyco Int’l Ltd., et al. Civil No. 08-cv-1336-PB

 Nuveen Balanced Mun. & Stock

 Fund, et al. v.

 Tyco Int’l Ltd., et al. Civil No. 08-cv-1338-PB

 Blackrock Global Allocation

 Fund, Inc., et al. v. 

 Tyco Int’l Ltd., et al. Civil No. 08-cv-1339-PB

 State Treasurer of the State

 of Michigan, et al. v.

 Tyco Int’l Ltd., et al. Civil No. 08-cv-1340-PB

 Public Employees’ Retirement

 Assoc. of Colorado v.

 Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz Civil No. 08-cv-1341-PB

SUGGESTION OF REMAND

Pretrial proceedings on common matters have been

substantially completed in the above-referenced cases, Civil

Action Nos. 08-cv-1336-PB; 08-cv-1338-PB; 08-cv-1339-PB; 08-cv1340-PB and 08-cv-1341-PB. The parties in these cases are in

agreement that they should be remanded to the court where they

were originally filed, and the court has determined that a remand

order will best serve the expeditious resolution of these cases. 

Accordingly, the court recommends that the Judicial Panel on

Case 1:08-cv-01339-PB Document 17 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 2
Multidistrict Litigation remand the above-referenced cases to the

courts in which they were originally filed. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 1, 2010

cc: Counsel of Record 

Case 1:08-cv-01339-PB Document 17 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

Arthur D'Amario III

V .

James R . Starr, Clerk of the

United States District Court-N H

O R D E R

Civil No . 07-cv-32 4

All of the judges in this district have recused themselves

from presiding over this case . Accordingly, subject to the

concurrence of Chief Judge Singal, the case shall be designated

and assigned to an active district judge from the District of

Maine . Sitting by designation, the assigned judge is authorized

to hold court within this district and perform any judicial

function required of a judge of this district as set forth in 28

U .S .C . § 296 . Jurisdiction over the case remains with the New

Hampshire District Court .

The recusal of all of the judges on this court gives rise to

an "emergency" with respect to the referred case as that term is

used in 28 U .S .C . § 636(f) . I therefore concur in the assignment

of a magistrate judge from the designated district to perform the

duties specified in 28 U .S .C . § 636(a)-(c) .

Case 1:07-cv-00324-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/16/07 Page 1 of 3
SO ORDERED .

Z

even J1 McAuliffe

Chief Judge

November 14, 200 7

cc : Clerk, USDC, Main e

Arthur D'Amario, III, pro s e

2

Case 1:07-cv-00324-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/16/07 Page 2 of 3
C O N C U R R I N G O R D E R

I concur that John A . Woodcock, a district judge i n

active service, shall be designated and assigned to preside over

the above-captioned case .

I further concur that an emergency exists as specified above

and that for the duration of this case Magistrate Judge Margaret J .

Kravchuk is assigned to perform such duties under 28 U .S .C .

~ 636(a)-(c) as may be assigned to her by the district judge

to whom this case is assigned .

/s/George Z . Singal

Chief Judge, Assignee District

Date : November 16, 200 7

cc : Clerk, USDC,

Attorneys

3

Case 1:07-cv-00324-JAW Document 11 Filed 11/16/07 Page 3 of 3
#### J. W. McMAHON, Appellant, v. Emma S. McMAHON, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Jan. 20, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Subsidiary Companies of Huntingdon Life Sciences Group plc



Name                                           Jurisdiction

Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd                   England & Wales
Huntingdon Life Sciences Inc                   Delaware, USA
HIH Capital Ltd                                Jersey
HIH Ltd                                        England & Wales
HRC Ltd                                        England & Wales
Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd                 England & Wales
Huntingdon Consulting Engineers Ltd            England & Wales
Huntingdon LSR Ltd                             England & Wales
Paragon Global Services Ltd                    England & Wales
Pathfinder Protek Ltd                          England & Wales
Life Science Research Ltd                      England & Wales
Aquatox Ltd                                    England & Wales
Huntingdon Life Sciences Co., Ltd              Japan
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2199 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2199

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                                 An Act

 
    To amend the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
Improvement Act of 1997 to permit any Federal law enforcement agency to 
    enter into a cooperative agreement with the Metropolitan Police 
   Department of the District of Columbia to assist the Department in 
  carrying out crime prevention and law enforcement activities in the 
     District of Columbia if deemed appropriate by the Chief of the 
Department and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, 
                         and for other purposes.

    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 ``District of Columbia Police 
Coordination Amendment Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING ADDITIONAL FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO ENTER 
              INTO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH METROPOLITAN POLICE 
              DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    Section 11712(d) of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997 (D.C. Code, sec. 5-133.17(d)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
        ``(33) Any other law enforcement agency of the Federal 
    government that the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department and 
    the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia deem 
    appropriate to enter into an agreement pursuant to this section.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Carl GAINEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Oct. 5, 1956.

Rosetti, Lenas, Berchtold & Greer, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The record and the briefs in this cause have been examined and the judgment appealed from is affirmed on authority of Cortes v. State, 135 Fla. 589, 185 So. 323; Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768, 119 So. 380; Parrish v. State, 90 Fla. 25, 105 So. 130; Lopez v. State, Fla., 66 So.2d 807, and Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, 39 A.L.R. 790; Section 933.13, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

Affirmed.

DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, HOBSON and THORNAL, JJ., concur.