alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HENDERSON v. McDEARMONT.

No. 4942.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Feb. 5, 1935.

*872Milton O. Trichel, Jr., and A. M. Richmond, both of Shreveport, for appellant.

Isaac Abramson, of Shreveport, for appel-lee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

Plaintiff sued for balance of $256.02 on open account for material and supplies furnished and money advanced defendant, “as per annexed statement of account.” The total of the account is alleged to have been $548.02. Payments aggregating $292 are admitted. The defense is a general denial. However, during the trial defendant admitted owing plaintiff $22-for goods and merchandise sold him. He appealed to this court from a judgment for plaintiff for the full amount sued for.

The account sued on discloses that it contains charges for rent on an automobile for 157 days at $1.50 per day, a total of $235.50. Ne reference to such charges is made in the petition. The allegations of the petition make it quite clear that the account was for materials and supplies sold to defendant and cash loaned him. Defendant did not object to the evidence tendered by plaintiff to prove that he rented defendant an automobile at the price of $1.50 per day and that it was used under the agreement for 157 days. In rebuttal of such evidence, he introduced several witnesses by whom he expected to prove that he never leased the car at all, but bought it on credit from plaintiff, who repossessed it when defendant failed to make satisfactory-payments thereon. Nearly all of this proffered testimony was excluded by the trial court.

There may be doubt of the admissibility of the evidence introduced by plaintiff to prove the correctness of-the charges for use of his car, but, as it was nbt objected to, it is properly in the record and should be given due consideration. If not admissible under the pleadings, the fact that it went in without objection certainly enlarged the pleadings to that extent, and, in either instance, defendant had the right to offer testimony to support his contention that he purchased the car on credit, but did not rent it.

We think the case should be remanded to the lower court for the purpose of admitting evidence that may be offered by either side touching the issue vel non of the sale or rental of the automobile in question; and, for the reasons given, the judgment appealed from is annulled and set aside, and this case remanded to the lower court for the purposes above stated. Costs of appeal are assessed against plaintiff appellee.
|What's New · 
   What's Next · 
   Site Map · 
   A-Z Index ·
   Careers ·
   RSS ·
   All Videos ·
   Current FAQs ·
   Contact Us |  | Search  Advanced Search | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization - G.17 Current Release
  Release Dates
  Monthly Supplement
  Annual Revision
  Data Download
  About
  Announcements
  Technical Q&As
 Current Release  (272 KB PDF)
(ASCII)  Table 3 Motor Vehicle Assemblies  Item
2015Average
2015
2015Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.Total
12.11
11.56
12.16
12.68
12.06
13.34
12.38
12.33
12.36
11.99
11.83Autos
4.17
4.09
4.34
4.28
3.94
4.64
4.13
4.08
4.00
3.87
3.95Trucks
7.94
7.47
7.83
8.40
8.12
8.70
8.25
8.25
8.36
8.13
7.88Light
7.62
7.15
7.50
8.07
7.81
8.39
7.91
7.92
8.04
7.82
7.58Medium and heavy
.32
.32
.32
.33
.31
.32
.34
.33
.32
.30
.30Memo:Autos and light trucks
11.79
11.24
11.84
12.35
11.75
13.03
12.04
11.99
12.04
11.69
11.53      Return to top
   Home Economic research and data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer  Linking Policy FOIA
 PDF Reader
#### SOUTHERN AMUSEMENT COMPANY v. J. H. FUNDERBERG, City Tax Collector of Lake Charles, et al.

No. 1349.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 4, 1934.

E. R. Kaufman, of Lake Charles, for appellant.

McCoy, King & Jones, of Lake Charles, for appellees.

LE BLANC, Judge.

Two questions involved in this case were certified by this court to the Honorable Supreme Court of Louisiana, with a request for instructions how to decide them.

The Supreme Court assigning reasons in an opinion, 157 So. 720, copy of which is filed in the record in the ease of the Southern Amusement Co., Inc., v. City of Jennings et al., No. 5013 of the docket of the Fourteenth judicial district court, in and for the parish of Jefferson Davis, and which reasons are to apply in this case as well, answered one of the questions certified by us and found it unnecessary to answer the other, and instructed this court to render judgment affirming the judgment of the district court.

Complying with those instructions we now enter the following decree:

It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from he and the same is hereby affirmed.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Value Line, Inc. (the
“Company”), for the period ended April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jean Bernhard Buttner,
Chairman & Chief Executive 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, as amended;
and
 
 2)
    the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 Date: February 25, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Jean Bernhard
      ButtnerJean Bernhard ButtnerChairman
      & Chief Executive Officer
  53
  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Value Line, Inc. (the
“Company”), for the period ended April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David T. Henigson,
Vice President & Treasurer 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, as amended;
and
 
 2)
    the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 Date: February 25, 2005
    By:
    /s/ David T.
    HenigsonDavid T. HenigsonVice
      President & Treasurer
 
  54
  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Value Line, Inc. (the
“Company”), for the period ended April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen R. Anastasio,
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, as amended;
and
 
 2)
    the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 Date: February 25, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Stephen R.
      AnastasioStephen R. AnastasioChief
      Financial Officer
 
 55
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0253

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KENT ALLEN TICHENOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Opening Brief, and good cause appearing;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time 

to and including March 4, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve 

Appellant’s Opening Brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 27 2022

01/27/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0253
Order entered December 13, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01033-CV

HENRY SANCHEZ D/B/A H SANCHEZ CONSTRUCTION, Appellant

V.

ALBERRAMAN L. CASTILLO, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-03266-B

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter Robin N. Washington’s December 12, 2018 request for 

extension of time to file the record. We GRANT the request and ORDER the reporter’s record 

be filed no later than December 27, 2018.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BETH TAYLOR, * N/F of K.S., a Minor, * No. 16-1382V

* Special Master Christian J. Moran Petitioner, *
v. *

* Filed: May 30, 2017

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



### ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS 1

In a status report filed on March 24, 2017, the petitioner requested that her case be dismissed pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a)(1)(A). As the petitioner pointed out, the Secretary has not filed a report in this case.

Accordingly, the following is ORDERE D:

1. The case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is instructed that a judgment shall not enter pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(c).

2. If the petitioner files a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, the petitioner must establish subject matter jurisdiction

. At that time, the issues raised in the Secretary’s April 24, 2017 motion to dismiss will be considered.

IT IS SO ORDERED

. s/Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran Special Master

1 T he E -Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noel Figurado GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-50241.

D.C. No. CR-01-01085-AHM-1.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T. G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Noel Figurado Guzman appeals his guilty plea conviction and 10-month sentence for possession of stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U. S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Guzman has filed a brief stating that there are no meritorious issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Guzman has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no further issues for review. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      Exhibit 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                          -----------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-2481, 33-18221, 33-32596, 33-32597, 33-44633, 33-67782, 33-67784, 333-35787
and 333-56481 of Gibson Greetings, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated February
17, 1999, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gibson Greetings, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 1998.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
March 31, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          34,895
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,386,441
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,713,519
<INVENTORY>                                  4,839,081
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,737,816
<PP&E>                                       2,180,965
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,216,580
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,062,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,339,296
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        225
<COMMON>                                        24,540
<OTHER-SE>                                     863,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,062,689
<SALES>                                      6,728,732
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,728,732
<CGS>                                        5,434,226
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,858,696
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,855
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             331,477
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (926,522)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (926,522)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (926,522)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.40)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Timothy W. Hazelton, Sr.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00419-JL

New Hampshire Department of

Corrections, Commissioner, et al.

 O R D E R

The court has undertaken active consideration of the summary

judgment motion, with the intention of issuing an order on the

motion during the month of April. It is the court's practice to

hear oral argument on all dispositive motions, but if NEITHER

party desires oral argument, counsel are asked to so notify the

Deputy Clerk as soon as practicable and the court will issue an

order based on the filings.

All pretrial filing deadlines are suspended pending

resolution of the summary judgment motion. Further, if there is

any reason that the court should not actively consider the motion

at this time (such as an imminent settlement or planned,

potentially successful mediation), counsel are requested to

immediately notify the Deputy Clerk.

Case 1:08-cv-00419-JL Document 38 Filed 03/26/10 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: March 26, 2010

cc: Michael J. Sheehan, Esq.

Danielle Leah Pacik, Esq.

2

Case 1:08-cv-00419-JL Document 38 Filed 03/26/10 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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 onForm 10-Q of BPZ Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward G. Caminos, as Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Edward G. Caminos*  | * * |
|--------------------------|----------|
| Edward  G. Caminos       |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
| November  8, 2007        |

 

4

----
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOHN RICHARD VARNER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50071

D.C. No. 5:07-cr-00028-VAP-2

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 7, 2013** 

Pasadena, California

Before: THOMAS and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, Chief

District Judge.*** 

FILED

MAR 13 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Defendant-Appellant John Varner was convicted on four counts of

conspiracy and tax fraud. Varner appeals his conviction, arguing that the trial

court erred in failing to give the jury an accomplice instruction sua sponte and that

counsel’s failure to request the instruction constituted ineffective assistance.

A district court’s failure to give a jury instruction sua sponte is reviewed for

plain error. United States v. Guthrie, 931 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1991). Because

we have held that “where an accomplice instruction is not requested, it is not plain

error not to give one sua sponte,” United States v. Gere, 662 F.2d 1291, 1295 (9th

Cir. 1981), Varner’s first argument fails.

Nor was counsel’s failure to request the instruction ineffective assistance. 

On the record before us, we conclude that defense counsel’s conduct “falls within

the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984). 

The judgment is AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 08-cr-80-01 SM

Michelle Despres

O R D E R

Defendant's to motion to continue the trial for thirty days (document no. 27)

is granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the March trial period. Defendant shall file

a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than January 19, 2010. On the filing of such

waiver, the continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny

the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into

account the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:08-cr-00080-SM Document 28 Filed 01/08/10 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: March 2, 2009 at 3:00 PM 

Jury Selection: March 16, 2010 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

January 8, 2010 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00080-SM Document 28 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1963

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the route taken

by American soldier and frontiersman George Rogers Clark and his

men during the Revolutionary War to capture the British forts at

Kaskaskia and Cahokia, Illinois, and Vincennes, Indiana, for study for

potential addition to the National Trails System.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 2001

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

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the

route taken by American soldier and frontiersman

George Rogers Clark and his men during the Revolutionary War to capture the British forts at Kaskaskia

and Cahokia, Illinois, and Vincennes, Indiana, for study

for potential addition to the National Trails System.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1963 IH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF GEORGE ROGERS CLARK

2 NORTHWEST CAMPAIGN TRAIL FOR STUDY

3 FOR POTENTIAL ADDITION TO THE NA4 TIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM.

5 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16

6 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new paragraph:

8 ‘‘(41) GEORGE ROGERS CLARK NORTHWEST CAM9 PAIGN TRAIL.—The George Rogers Clark Northwest

10 Campaign Trail, tracing the water route and overland

11 route of the 1778 and 1779 expedition of Lieutenant Colo12 nel George Rogers Clark and his Virginia militia against

13 the British in which he captured the British forts at

14 Kaskaskia and Cahokia, in what is now Illinois, and twice

15 captured Vincennes, in what is now Indiana.’’.

Æ
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1834

To require the Department of Energy to study potential regulatory

improvements that may help alleviate high fuel prices.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 15, 2001

Mr. SMITH of Michigan (for himself, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. PETRI, Mr. BARTLETT

of Maryland, and Mr. ENGLISH) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To require the Department of Energy to study potential

regulatory improvements that may help alleviate high

fuel prices.

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

3 That the Secretary of Energy shall undertake a study of

4 areas where Federal regulations may be modified to help

5 alleviate ongoing gasoline price pressures, including—

6 (1) the potential for improvements related to

7 increased costs resulting from the high number of

8 ‘‘boutique’’ fuel formulations produced in the United

9 States;
2

•HR 1834 IH

1 (2) the potential for decreasing refining costs

2 through changes in fuel Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)

3 requirements;

4 (3) the potential for cost savings through regu5 latory changes related to the transition from winter

6 to summer fuel mixes; and

7 (4) any other areas that the Secretary believes

8 that regulations could be streamlined or improved to

9 alleviate high fuel prices.

10 The Secretary shall submit a report to Congress con11 taining the results of such study within 90 days after the

12 enactment of this Act.

Æ