alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
211 La. 165

#### REDON et ux. v. ARMSTRONG et ux.

No. 38368.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1947.

Harold J. Winling and John J. Finnom, both of New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Sidney G. Roos, of New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellees.

FOURNET, Justice.

This case-is before us for consideration of the appellees’ motion to dismiss' the sus-pensive appeal taken by the defendants-appellants from a judgment cancelling their lease and ordering them to vacate the premises leased to them by the plaintiffs, the motion being based on the insufficiency of the surety signing the appeal bond of $5,000.

It appears that when the defendants furnished bond in the amount of $5,000 in accordance with the order granting the sus-pensive appeal the sureties on the first two bonds were tested for solvency and found by the trial judge to be insufficient. The defendants then furnished a third appeal bond. This was also questioned and the surety found by the trial judge to be solvent to the extent of $2,000 only. The appellants failed to furnish additional security to cover the $3,000 discrepancy.

In answer to the motion the appellants admit that the last bond was held, on traverse, to be valid for only $2,000, but they ask that the appeal either be maintained under this amount as a devolutive appeal or that the matter be remanded to the lower court so that the trial judge may fix the bond applicable to a devolutive appeal.

Having failed to furnish the security required for the suspension of the execution of the judgment rendered in the lower court pending our determination of the matter, the appellants are not entitled to a suspensive appeal. Articles 565 and 575 of the Code of Practice. We are of the opinion, however, that inasmuch as the surety furnished is obviously sufficient to secure the payment of costs, the appellants are entitled to have the judgment complained of reviewed by this court. Article 578 of the Code of Practice.

For the reasons assigned the motion to dismiss the appeal is maintained in so far as the same stays or suspends the execution of the judgment appealed from, but it is denied as to a devolutive appeal.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice,

dissents, being of the opinion that, in cases where an appeal bond is required by law, the appellant must furnish a bond for the amount fixed in the order of appeal, or for the amount determined by law in the cases where it is so determined. Citing Dwight v. Barrow, 25 La.Ann. 424.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of TBC Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas W. Garvey,
Executive Vice President and 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.

March 31, 2005                         By /s/ Thomas W. Garvey
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Thomas W. Garvey
                                          Executive Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer (principal
                                           financial and accounting officer)

                                    79 of 79
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 11

                                                        Three Months Ended
                                                             March 31,
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                        1998            1997
                                                    ------------    ----------- 
                                                       (Dollars in thousands)

Diluted net income per share:
  Net income .....................................  $     (4,665)   $        63
  Preferred Stock dividend .......................          (417)            --
                                                    ------------    ----------- 
   Net income available to common shareholders ...  $     (5,082)   $        63
                                                    ============    ===========

   Average number of shares outstanding ..........     9,742,778      7,570,000
   Net effect of dilutive stock options-based on       
     treasury stock method .......................            --        345,294
                                                    ------------    ----------- 
                                                  
  Total average shares ...........................     9,742,778      7,915,294
                                                    ============    =========== 

  Fully dilutive net income per share ............  $      (0.52)   $      0.01
September 21st 2015 filed in

1ST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON. TEXAS

Mr. Christopher A. Prine SEP 2 3 2015

Clerk of the Court j^A^*-"^ x. „ ^ ^ « -. CHRISTSP/I^M^PfilNE First Court of Appeals VVfj

301 Fannin Street cifrk r^-J

Houston, Texas 77002-2066

Re: Case No. 01-15-00402-CR; Birshal D. Mitchell v. State of Texas

Dear Mr. Prine,

I am writing in regards to the above numbered and styled cause, and would

ask how I might file a Brief with this Court if there is no Official Reporter's

record as was indicated on the Court's white card that I received on 09/14/15.

The Texas Constitution clearly states in Article 1, Section 10, that I

have a right to be heard, and the fact that I filed with the 337th Judicial

District Court a Motion For Nunc Pro Tunc, which wasn't heard it seems by the

Judge of the Court, but was in fact, denied by the Clerk of the Court, Chris

Daniel.

I am only aware that I have a right to access to the Courts, yet it would

seem that the Court has someone in the Clerk's Office that screens incoming

Motions and other paperwork to determine what will be filed and what won't be

filed. As in this case, my Motion For Nunc Pro Tunc.

All I am requesting from this Honorable Court is for them to order the 337th

Judicial District Court to do what is required by Law, to give a "Fair & Impar

tial Hearing" to my legalwork.

I know that the Clerk of the Court for the 1st District of Texas cannot give

legal advice, but I am giving notice by this letter that without the record, I

cannot properly file a Brief in this matter, and that is on the 337th District

Court.

Sincerely,

Birshal D. Mitchell, TDCJ-CID #630503

McConnell Unit

3001 South Emily Drive

Beeville, Texas 7B102
Birshal Dion Mitchell

TDGJ-CID #630503

William G. McConnell Unit

3001 South Emily Drive

^Beeville, Texas 78102

Mr. Christopher A. Pri

First District of Te

310 Fann

Houston, Texas 

7T00
#### Sinclair Haberman, Respondent, v City of Long Beach et al., Appellants.

[807 NYS2d 418]

In an action, inter aha, for a judgment declaring that the defendants effected an unconstitutional taking of the plaintiffs property, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated April 1, 2004, as denied their renewed motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On a prior appeal this Court determined that there were issues of fact, inter alia, as to whether there had been a taking which needed to be decided at trial *(see Haberman v City of Long Beach,*298 AD2d 497 [2002]). The plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint to allege a temporary regulatory taking claim *(see Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,*535 US 302 [2002]). Thereafter, the defendants renewed their motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint asserting essentially the same arguments, except that they added the fact that the Architectural Review Board of the City of Long Beach, comprised *584of members of the City Council of the City of Long Beach, never rendered a determination on the plaintiff’s application for a building permit. This new fact does not alter the result. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment *(see Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, supra; Penn Central Transp. Co. v New York City,*438 US 104 [1978]; *Matter of Gazza v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation,*89 NY2d 603, 617 [1997]; *Matter of Friedenburg v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation,*3 AD3d 86 [2003]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Telefonaktiebolaget LM
Ericsson (publ) (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2015 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated April 4, 2016



/s/ Hans VestbergHans Vestberg
President and Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is
not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         198,578
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,355,301
<ALLOWANCES>                                    23,192
<INVENTORY>                                  5,814,714
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,425,881
<PP&E>                                       1,707,609
<DEPRECIATION>                                 840,952
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,429,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,034,033
<BONDS>                                      4,034,835
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,103
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,785,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,429,312
<SALES>                                      4,644,521
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,644,521
<CGS>                                        3,863,096
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,693,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               127,125
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,283
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             110,721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,588
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,588
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,588
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

                                                              Page 65 of 69

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation is the parent
corporation of 262 subsidiaries which operate "off-price"
retail apparel 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.

                                                              Page 66 of 69
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 113 filed 08/02/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 113 filed 08/02/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2099 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2099

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

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

                                 An Act

 
 To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to 
   provide adequate funding authorization for the Vancouver National 
                            Historic Reserve.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION FOR RESERVE.

    Section 502(d) of division I of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 
Management Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; 110 Stat. 4154) is amended 
by striking ``$5,000,000'' and all that follows through the period and 
inserting ``$15,000,000 for development costs associated with capital 
projects consistent with the cooperative management plan, except that 
the Federal share of such development costs shall not exceed 50 percent 
of the total costs.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART

Defendants.

 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISCLOSE

MATTERS OCCURRING BEFORE GRAND JURY TO DEFENDANTS

 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Disclose Matters Occurring

Before Grand Jury to Defendant (Doc. 18), pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6 (e) (3) (E) (i). 

Having reviewed the motion and being otherwise advised in the premises, the Court finds

that good and sufficient cause supports the same, and it is therefore

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Testimony of witnesses before the

grand jury and exhibits presented to the grand jury may be disclosed to the defendants and

their counsel in the course of discovery in this case. It is further

ORDERED that such materials shall only be used in defending this case; that such

materials may be disclosed only to the defendants and their attorneys; that if copies are

made, the defendants’ attorneys shall maintain custody of such copies, and shall not

reproduce or disseminate them; and that any material provided pursuant to this Order shall

be returned to the plaintiff at the completion of the case.

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 22-1 filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
DATED: ___________________ ____, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________

MARCIA S. KRIEGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 22-1 filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 856 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 17, 2007.
Whereas the community of Omaha, Nebraska has suffered through a tragic event at 
        the Westroads Mall that resulted in the loss of 9 lives and the wounding 
        of several others;
Whereas on December 5, 2007, a troubled young man entered a department store in 
        the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska carrying a rifle;
Whereas the young man began to randomly fire his rifle at shoppers and store 
        clerks within the Von Maur department store and other locations within 
        Westroads Mall;
Whereas the result of this shooting spree resulted in the deaths of Gary Scharf, 
        John McDonald, Angie Schuster, Maggie Webb, Janet Jorgensen, Diane 
        Trent, Gary Joy, and Beverly Flynn;
Whereas Fred Wilson, Michelle Oldham, Jeff Schaffert, and Brad Stafford were 
        wounded as a result of the shootings;
Whereas the first responders, officers of the Omaha Police Department, Douglas 
        and Sarpy County Sheriff's Department, and Omaha Fire Department, 
        arrived at the Westroads Mall within minutes and secured all entrances 
        and exits to the mall and discovered a number of deceased persons, 
        including the shooter;
Whereas on December 6, 2007 Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman ordered that all 
        United States and State flags in Nebraska be flown at half-staff through 
        Sunday, Dec. 9; and
Whereas the grieving and celebration of the lives of those lost in this 
        senseless tragedy will be with the greater Omaha community for months 
        and years to come: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives--
            (1) expresses its heartfelt sympathy for the victims and families of 
        the shootings in Omaha, Nebraska on Wednesday, December 5, 2007; and
            (2) conveys its gratitude to the city and county officials, and all 
        the police, fire, sheriff, and emergency medical teams who responded 
        swiftly to the scene and secured the mall and surrounding area.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### The National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

# AGENCY:

The National Endowment for the Humanities. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended) notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts Domestic Indemnity Panel of the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities will be held at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, in Room 730, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., on Monday, October 20, 2008. 

The purpose of the meeting is to review applications for Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities for exhibitions beginning after December 1, 2008. 

                    Because the proposed meeting will consider financial and commercial data and because it is important to keep values of objects, methods of transportation and security measures confidential, pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's                           ( print page 57154)                        Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that the meeting would fall within exemption (4) of 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and that it is essential to close the meeting to protect the free exchange of views and to avoid interference with the operations of the Committee.                 

It is suggested that those desiring more specific information contact Advisory Committee Management Officer, Michael P. McDonald, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, or call 202-606-8322. 

Michael P. McDonald, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

 [FR Doc. E8-23141 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
29

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 n.a. n.a. n.a.

 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.