alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered July 30. 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00436
- CV
HOLLY BONE A/K/A HOLLY MARTIN , Appellant
V. DAVID TYLER MOSS, ET AL. , Appellee s On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 20
- 09893

O RDER On July 23, 2021, a sealed supplemental clerk’s record was filed containing the trial court’s January 22, 2021 “Ex Parte and Under Seal Omnibus Orders for
Issuance of Post

- Judgment W ri ts of Garnishment.” The record before this Court, however, does not contain a sealing order allowing the supplemental clerk’s record to be filed under seal. Accordingly, w e will temporarily seal the supplemental clerk’s reco rd for FORTY DAYS to allow the parties to obtain an order from the trial court sealing the supplemental clerk’s record

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 76 a.The parties shall provide, within forty days of the date of this order, written

verification whether the trial court signed a sealing order. If the trial court does not sign a sealing order within the time prescribed, the Court will vacate the portion of this order temporarily sealing the supplemental clerk’s record

. If the trial court signs a sealing order, we O RDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file, within forty
- five days of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing the sealing order.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Martin Ho ffman, Presiding Judge of the 68 th Judicial District Court; Ms. Pitre ; and, the parties.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 23


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. of our report dated October 24, 1996,
included in the 1996 Annual Report to Shareholders of Span-America Medical
Systems, Inc.

Our audit also included the financial statement schedule of Span-America Medical
Systems, Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole
presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-32896) pertaining to the Span-America Medical Systems, Inc.
1987 Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-84374)
pertaining to the Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. 1991 Stock Option Plan of
our report dated October 24, 1996, with respect to the financial statements
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding
paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Span-America Medical Systems, Inc.



                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Greenville, South Carolina
December 18, 1996
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1866 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1866

    To amend title 35, United States Code, to clarify the basis for 
            granting requests for reexamination of patents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2001

  Mr. Coble introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 35, United States Code, to clarify the basis for 
            granting requests for reexamination of patents.

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

SECTION 1. DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY 
              IN REEXAMINATION PROCEEDINGS.

    Sections 303(a) and 313(a) title 35, United States Code, are each 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``The existence of a 
substantial new question of patentability is not precluded by the fact 
that a patent or printed publication was previously cited by or to the 
Office.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
determinations of the Director of the United States Patent and 
Trademark Office that are made under section 303(a) or 313(a) of title 
35, United States Code, on and after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APRIL 25, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-14384

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00027-CR-3-RV

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

EUGENE JEROME SMITH, 

a.k.a. Sperm, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(As amended 11/19/2007)

(April 25, 2007)

Before DUBINA, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Jerome Smith appeals his sentence of 300-months’ imprisonment for

one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute less than
 To the extent Smith argues that the district court erred in basing the sentence upon a 1

drug amount that exceeded the jury’s verdict, this argument is without merit. United States v.

Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1323 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we need not address Smith’s

arguments concerning the district court’s alternative sentencing calculations. 

2

500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and

841(b)(1)(C), one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and one count of

possession with intent to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Smith argues that the district court failed to

impose a reasonable sentence, and challenges the district court’s consideration of

alternative sentences.

In this case, under our precedent, the district court correctly calculated the

guideline range, understood that the guidelines were advisory, considered the

factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as well as Smith’s arguments, and

ultimately imposed a sentence at the low end of the applicable guideline range.1

Accordingly, we cannot conclude that his sentence was unreasonable. United

States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 785 (11th Cir. 2005). 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersignedcertifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatinformation contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Golf Trust ofAmerica, Inc.

 
| Date: May 15, 2006 | /s/ W. BRADLEY BLAIR, II                            |   |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|               | W. Bradley Blair, II                                |
|               | *President and Chief Executive Officer*             |
|               |                                                |
| Date: May 15, 2006 | /s/ SCOTT D. PETERS                                 |   |
|               | Scott D. Peters                                     |
|               | *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* |
|                    |                                                     |        |  |

 

----
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 filing of HomeLife  Inc.'s (the "Company")  Annual Report
on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  August 31, 2003 with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Andrew Cimerman,  the
President and 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; 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/ Andrew Cimerman
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Andrew Cimerman
                                        President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer
Date:  October 15, 2003

<PAGE>

               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 filing of HomeLife  Inc.'s (the "Company")  Annual Report
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2003,  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Marie M. May,  the
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  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                                        /s/ Marie M. May
                                        --------------------------
                                        Marie M. May
                                        Chief Financial Officer
Date:  October 15, 2003
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 FranciscoDistrict: 12Federal Reserve Bank of: San FranciscoFilings received during the week ending September 22, 2018FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBANK OF HAWAII                                                                                                          PWIBank of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, requests prior approval to make a $8.0 million public welfare investment in the Hunt Capital Partners Tax Credit Fund 29, LP.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not applicableFNB BANCORP                                                                                                             CICNotice of Change in Control filed by Kevin Stacy Garn, Layton, Utah, Courtney Allphin, Layton, Utah, Gabe Garn, Syracuse, Utah, Jake Garn, Layton, Utah, Jordan Garn, Farmington, Utah, Talmage Garn, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Taylee Goff, Farmington, Utah, to retain voting shares of FNB Bancorp, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of First National Bank of Layton, both of Layton, Utah.Newspaper: 09/14/2018Federal Register: 09/19/2018
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2077 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2077

     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the 
disclosure to State and local law enforcement agencies of the identity 
 of individuals claiming tax benefits improperly using social security 
                     numbers of other individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 6, 2001

Ms. Hooley of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the 
disclosure to State and local law enforcement agencies of the identity 
 of individuals claiming tax benefits improperly using social security 
                     numbers of other individuals.

    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 ``ID Theft Loophole Closure Act''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF 
              IDENTITY OF INDIVIDUALS CLAIMING TAX BENEFIT USING 
              IMPROPER SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (m) of section 6103 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to disclosure of taxpayer identity 
information) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(8) Individuals claiming tax benefit using improper 
        social security numbers.--If any State or local law enforcement 
        agency has reasonable cause to believe, based upon information 
        believed to be reliable, that an individual may have violated a 
        law of such State by claiming a tax benefit on any income tax 
        return under this title using a TIN of any person who is not 
        such individual, such individual's spouse, or a dependent (as 
        defined in section 152) of such individual, the Secretary may 
        (upon written request from the head of such agency) disclose 
        the name, TIN, and mailing address of such individual to 
        officers and employees of such agency exclusively for use in 
        locating such individual.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
204 La. 21

#### SLATER v. BLAIZE et al.

No. 37237.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 4, 1943.

R. A. Dowling, of New Orleans, for relator.

L. H. Perez, of New Orleans, for respondents.

FOURNET, Justice.

Walter J. Blaize, one of the parties ordered by Judge Albert Estopinal, Jr., of the Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Plaquemines to show cause why an injunction should not issue enjoining and prohibiting him, as well as certain other parties alleged to be conspiring with him, from forcibly taking the office of sheriff held by Dr. Benjamin R. Slater and restraining him from taking any action pending the hearing of the rule nisi, seeks to have this court issue a peremptory writ addressed to Judge Estiponal, Leander Perez, the district attorney of the said district, and Dr. Slater, prohibiting them from proceeding further with the trial of the injunction proceedings thus instituted and restraining them from further interfering with his (Blaize’s) exercise of the functions of the office of sheriff and tax collector for the Parish of Plaquemines.

Under the express provisions of our law, the proper procedure in cases where the person claiming title to an office is not in actual possession thereof is by quo war-ranto or intrusion-into-office proceedings (Article 867 etc., of the Code of Practice and Section 2593, etc., of the Revised Statutes, as amended by Act No. 102 of 1928), but it is the settled jurisprudence of this state that the person who is in possession of and claiming title to an office may resort to injunctive proceedings to maintain his possession thereof pending an orderly determination of the title thereto. Guillotte v. Poincy, 41 La.Ann. 333, 6 So. 507, 5 L.R.A. 403; Goldman v. Gillespie, 43 La.Ann. 83, 8 So. 880; State v. Turner, 152 La. 828, 829, 94 So. 411; and Guillory v. Jones, 197 La. 165, 1 So.2d 65. An exhaustive discussion of the jurisprudence on this subject will be found in the Guillory case.

In any event, in his opposition, Dr. Slater calls our attention to the fact that the injunction proceedings here sought to be stayed were withdrawn by him and dismissed by the lower court the day before this application was filed. This renders the question here presented for our consideration a moot one.

For the reasons assigned, the writ applied for is refused.

ROGERS, Justice

(concurring).

I concur in the refusal of relator’s application for the reason it presents only a moot question, in view of the dismissal of the injunction proceedings complained of.

O’NIELL, C. J., and ODOM and HAM-ITER, JJ1, absent.
#### KUYKENDALL v. MOORE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
EXHIBIT 21

 

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation is the parent corporation of 349 subsidiaries which operate "off-price" retail stores in the United States.

Burlington Coat Factory Realty Corp., a Delaware corporation, which buys, sells and otherwise deals in real estate in connection with the Company's business.

Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, which leases the Company's store in Clifton Heights, Pennsylvania to one of the Company's operating subsidiaries.

Monroe G. Milstein, Inc., a New York corporation, which operates a wholesale apparel business.

LC Acquisition Corp., a New York corporation, which owns an interest in a manufacturer of coats.

C.L.B., Inc., a Delaware corporation, through which the Company collects royalties from its subsidiaries for the use of its trade names.

C.F.B., Inc., a Delaware corporation, through which the Company provides financing for its subsidiaries for the acquisition of their merchandise inventory and store fixtures.

C.F.I.C. Corporation, a Delaware corporation, which is an investment holding company.

Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation, a New Jersey corporation, formed for direct marketing purposes.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION**

**906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted 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), I, Ronald D. Croatti, President and Chief Executive Officer of UniFirst Corporation (the “Company”), do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1)The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended August 29, 2009 (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.

 

|                    |                                                                                                                        |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: November 12, 2009 | By: /s/ Ronald D. Croatti

 

Ronald D. Croatti, President and

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) |
B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures
________________________________________________________________________________

Year                       Q1          Q2          Q3          Q4          Total
________________________________________________________________________________

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
2006......    |             0           0           0           0              0
2007......    |             0           0           0           0              0
2008......    |             1           0           0           2              3
2009......    |             2           3           2           2              9
________________________________________________________________________________
   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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Gonzales, Also Known as Carlos Gonzalez, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 724]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered November 28, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor made *581improper comments during summation is unpreserved for appellate review, as no objections were made at trial *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19; *People v Mapp,*245 AD2d 307, 308). In any event, the prosecutor’s comments were either well within the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment *(see People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 399; *People v Alvarado,*262 AD2d 651), or were a fair response to the statements contained in the defense counsel’s summation *(see People v Halm,*81 NY2d 819, 821; *People v Ricone,*288 AD2d 402, *lv denied*97 NY2d 708).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.