alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LYNCH v. DURRANCE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
__________

__________ THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECED ENT IN ANY PROC EEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Cazario Marshall, Respondent,

v. State of South Carolina, Petitioner. Appellate Case No. 2010-161448

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal from Allendale County Paul M. Burch, Trial Judge Perry M. Buckner, Post-Conviction Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2013-MO-002 Submitted January 24, 2013 – Filed February 6, 2013

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Suzanne H. White, all of Columbia, for the State.Appellant Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins of Columbia for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We granted the State's writ of ce rtiorari to review the grant of Respondent's application for post-convicti on relief (PCR). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY , KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.
#### Willie ASHER et al., etc., Petitioners, v. Honorable Clay M. BISHOP, Judge, Clay Circuit Court, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 30, 1972.

Mark E. Gormley, James L. Gay, Versailles, for petitioners.

Robert Milby, London, for respondent.

MILLIKEN, Judge.

The petitioners filed this original action in this court seeking to prohibit the respondent, Honorable Clay M. Bishop, judge of the Clay Circuit Court, from proceeding further in a suit they filed in his court. They contend that their suit in Clay Coun*770ty, filed in February 1971, was abandoned by them by their subsequent filing of a similar suit in the Woodford Circuit Court in March 1971. The litigation in both circuit courts involved damages for alleged trespass to land in Clay and Leslie Counties by the Shamrock Coal Company, a Tennessee corporation, which, upon learning of the actions, voluntarily filed its answer first in the Clay County suit and then in the one filed in Woodford County where one of the plaintiffs lived, the latter suit having been begun on the theory that our “long-arm” statute enacted in 1968, KRS 454.210, authorized it when it was discovered that Shamrock’s agent for the service of process was no longer living in Kentucky. In the Woodford Circuit Court, Shamrock sought dismissal of the action there for a number of reasons including lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter and improper venue.

A civil action is begun by the filing of a complaint and the issuance of a summons or warning order in good faith, CR 3, and not by the actual service of process. The petitioners could have dismissed their Clay Circuit Court suit “without order of court, by filing a notice at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer * * CR 41.01, but this they did not do, but rather proceeded a few weeks later in the Woodford Circuit Court, apparently intending to abandon their Clay County suit. The Clay Circuit Court clearly had jurisdiction of the subject matter, the land involved, under KRS 452.400 which says:

> “Action must be brought in the county in which the subject of the action, or some part thereof, is situated: (1) for the recovery of real property, or of an estate or interest therein; ... (4) for an injury to real property.”

We think the Clay Circuit Court had exclusive jurisdiction of this litigation, KRS *452.400*and Ky.Digest, Venue, *&°5.*

We conclude that the petitioners have failed to show lack of jurisdiction in the Clay Circuit Court and that they -will suffer irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal, and so deny prohibition.

All concur.
5

A.1. Number of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersMillions

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1998...... 2.10 .15 .18 1.39 .17 .22 1.20 .45 .33 .12 1999...... 1.96 .14 .16 1.32 .16 .18 1.09 .44 .32 .11 2000...... 1.91 .11 .17 1.30 .13 .19 1.09 .44 .28 .10 2001...... 1.76 .13 .16 1.08 .13 .26 .97 .40 .28 .11 2002...... 1.95 .11 .15 1.34 .12 .23 1.11 .42 .31 .12 2003...... 1.66 .12 .12 1.14 .13 .15 .91 .36 .29 .10 2004...... 1.64 .09 .13 1.15 .13 .14 .87 .36 .29 .12 2005...... 1.47 .10 .11 1.02 .11 .14 .76 .32 .27 .12 2006...... 1.37 .11 .11 .92 .11 .11 .57 .36 .30 .13 2007...... 1.34 .09 .11 .90 .12 .13 .51 .38 .32 .14 2008...... 1.32 .07 .10 .91 .08 .15 .46 .38 .32 .16 2009...... 1.27 .09 .08 .87 .09 .14 .46 .36 .31 .13 2006: Q3... 1.23 .11 .08 .82 .10 .12 .48 .37 .27 .11  Q4... 1.13 .12 .10 .73 .08 .09 .42 .31 .29 .12 2007: Q1... 1.19 .08 .10 .79 .11 .12 .42 .32 .29 .17  Q2... 1.56 .08 .12 1.09 .13 .14 .63 .45 .35 .13  Q3... 1.25 .08 .08 .84 .12 .13 .49 .36 .28 .11  Q4... 1.37 .11 .15 .86 .10 .14 .50 .38 .34 .15 2008: Q1... 1.25 .09 .10 .83 .09 .13 .41 .36 .30 .18  Q2... 1.45 .07 .11 1.01 .10 .16 .54 .38 .36 .17  Q3... 1.22 .03 .08 .87 .09 .14 .45 .37 .28 .13  Q4... 1.38 .10 .12 .93 .06 .17 .46 .40 .36 .17 2009: Q1... 1.31 .09 .09 .89 .10 .15 .43 .36 .33 .19  Q2... 1.31 .08 .09 .91 .09 .13 .49 .37 .32 .13  Q3... 1.27 .07 .06 .92 .07 .14 .52 .36 .29 .11  Q4... 1.21 .12 .09 .76 .11 .13 .40 .38 .31 .12 2010: Q1... 1.17 .09 .08 .79 .08 .13 .40 .31 .31 .16  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
#### Archie Lee JEFFERSON, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Ana M. PALMER, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 02-15603.

D.C. No. CV-99-20879-RMW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2003.*

Decided Jan. 17, 2003.

*679Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

California state prisoner Archie Lee Jefferson appeals pro se the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his conviction for second degree burglary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, *Alvarado v. Hill,*252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

Jefferson contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of burglary, because the only evidence was his thumb print on the victim’s bathroom wall. Upon a review of the state court’s findings, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. *See Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); *Taylor v. Stainer,*31 F.3d 907, 910 (9th Cir.1994) (upholding burglary-murder conviction when the only evidence against defendant was a fingerprint on a windowsill and on a cup in victim’s bedroom).

The district court properly denied Jefferson’s § 2254 petition because the state court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. *Van Tran v. Lindsey,*212 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.1

**

 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.

1

. To the extent that Jefferson seeks to broaden the certificate of appealability to include ineffective assistance of counsel, that request is denied. *See*9th Cir. R. 22-1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          22,735
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  134,542
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,475
<INVENTORY>                                     75,517
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               271,334
<PP&E>                                         207,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                 136,888
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 362,828
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          152,729
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       123,968
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   362,868
<SALES>                                        352,476
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               437,762
<CGS>                                          187,737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  231,003
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               177,785
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (859)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,833
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,456
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,377
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,377
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Montgomery Carl Akers

v. Civil No. 08-cv-334-JL

James Keszei, et al.

O R D E R

Before the Court is Montgomery Akers’ complaint (document

no. 1) alleging that his federal Constitutional and statutory

rights have been violated by the defendants. The matter is

before me for preliminary review to determine, among other

things, whether it states any claim upon which relief might be

granted. See United States District Court District of New

Hampshire Local Rule 4.3(d)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Plaintiff resides in a federal penitentiary in Florence,

Colorado. Each of the defendants resides either in Missouri,

Nebraska, California, or Kansas. At this time, the Court can

ascertain no reason why the District of New Hampshire is the

appropriate venue for this action. 

Accordingly, plaintiff is required to show cause, within

fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order, why venue is

Case 1:08-cv-00334-JL Document 6 Filed 02/03/09 Page 1 of 2
2

appropriate in this Court. If plaintiff fails to make such a

showing, I will recommend that this matter be dismissed without

prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 3, 2009

cc: Montgomery Carl Akers, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00334-JL Document 6 Filed 02/03/09 Page 2 of 2
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: 3Federal Reserve Bank of: PhiladelphiaFilings received during the week ending July 6, 2013FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodDELANCO, MHC                                                                                                            * SLHC Formation
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 May 18, 2019FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodMain Street Bank Corporation                                                                                            * 3A1Main Street Bank Corporation, Woodside, California, to become a bank holding company through the acquisition of First Colorado Financial Corp., and its subsidiary bank, First Colorado National Bank, both of Paonia, Colorado.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not available
|Skip to ContentRelease dates |  
Historical data |  
DocumentationCurrent Monthly Release   Other formats:  
ASCII |  
PDF (144 KB)Supplemental Monthly Release  
  Other formats:  
ASCII |  
PDF (144 KB)Annual Revision Release  
  Other formats:  
ASCII |  
PDF (150 KB)
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



`Beginning with the 2005 Annual Revision on November 7, 2005, several individual
series which have been based primarily on electric power usage will be changed
to new series based primarily on production worker hour data from 1997 forward.
A list of old series and the new series is shown below.   These series are
published in tables in the G.17 Supplement.`

|Old series name | New series name
|--------------- | ---------------
|n3114           | g3114          
|n3256           | g3256          
|n3279           | g3279          
|n3325           | g3325          
|n3327           | g3327          
|n3351           | g3351          
|n3353           | g3353          
|n33593T9        | g33593T9       

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: October 24, 2005
EXHIBIT
4.1
 BOV1E
MEDICAL CORPORATION
 COMMON
STOCK
 
 INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
 This
 Certifies
 that
 
 is the
 owner
of
 
 FULLY
PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF THE PAR VALUE OF $.001 PER
SHARE OF
 
 **BOVIE
MEDICAL CORPORATION**
 
 (hereinafter
called the ‘Corporation’') transferable on the books of the Corporation in
person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate
Properly endorsed. This Certificate and the shared represented hereby Are issued
end shall be held subject to all the provision of the Certificate of
Incorporation and By-Laws of the Corporation and the amendments from time to
time made thereto, copies of' which are  or will
be on file at the principal office of the Corporation, to all of which the
holder by acceptance hereof assents.
 This
Certificate is not valid unless countersigned by The Transfer Agent and
Registrar.
 
 WITNESS
the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signature of its duly
authorized officers.
 
 Dated:
 
 Countersigned
      and Registered:PRESIDENTMANHATTAN
      TRANSFER REGISTRAR CO.(HOLBROOK,
      N.Y.)CHAIRMANTransfer
      Agentand
      RegistrarAuthorized
      Signature
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Project No. 12646-001—Oklahoma] 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 CFR 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the City of Broken Bow, Oklahoma's application for license for the proposed Pine Creek Lake Dam Hydropower Project (or Project), located on Pine Creek dam in McCurtain County, Oklahoma, and has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Project. The proposed Project would occupy a total of 10.12 acres of federal lands administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

The EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential future environmental effects of the Project. Staff has concluded that licensing the Project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 

                    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*                     or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659. You may also register online at                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​esubscription.asp*                     to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.                 

                    For further information, contact Allyson Conner by telephone at (202) 502-6082 or by e-mail at                     *allyson.conner@ferc.gov.*

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-21584 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
213 La. 782

#### ZACCARIA v. BEOUBAY.

No. 38404.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 26, 1948.

Rehearing Denied June 1, 1948.

*660, R. A. Dowling, .of New Orleans, for defendant. and appellant. ,

L. H. Gosserand, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

McCALEB, Justice.

The defendant has appealed suspensively from an order awarding alimony pendente lite to his wife and three children at the rate of $15 per week.

The evidence taken at the trial of the rule for alimony shows that defendant is a butcher by trade and a gambler by preference. He states that he has been out of employment because handbooks have been closed in the city of New Orleans; that a $30 per week job as a butcher was available to him but that he refused it since it required him to stand for long periods, which would be injurious to his health.

In this court, defendant’s counsel contends that the alimony award was improper as Article 148 of the Civil Code applies only in cases where the husband has means or is earning an income and that, since the evidence shows that defendant is impecunious, the decree should be set aside.

While it is true that the alimony pendente lite provided for by Article 148 of the Code is assessed in proportion to the needs of the wife and-the means of the husband, it was never contemplated that the latter could escape liability for alimony thereunder. by refusing to work. Oh the contrary, Article 120 of the Civil Code imposes upon the husband the duty to support his wife and his neglect to fulfill his obligation, when she is in necessitous circumstances, renders him amenable, to ' the penalties pr'ovided by Articles 74 and 75 of the Criminal Code.

Moreover, there, are three children in the case, at bar, aged. 6, 5 and 2 years respectively, who are entitled to alimony under Article 227 of the Civil Code. But counsel for defendant says that his client is not responsible for the support of the children as they were born out of wedlock,1

Thé conténtion that the children are not those of the marriage seems to be an afterthought on the part of defendant as he refers to'them-in'his testimony as his children and further stated that he had them in his custody at that time.2 Hence, since he admits that they are his children, they have been fully legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parties. See Article 199 of the Civil Code.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

1

 It appears from the wife’s petition .that the parties were married on November 7th 1344 and she claims that the children wore born of'the union.

2

 He was ordered by the judge to deliver the children to his wife.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MoneyLogix
Group, Inc. for the three month period ending March 31, 2010, I, Gary
Cilevitz, Chief Financial Officer of MoneyLogix Group, Inc. hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
that:




1.
  Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ending 
March 31, 2010, 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 such Quarterly  Report on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010, fairly represents in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
MoneyLogix Group, Inc.




Dated:
May 17, 2010





MONEYLOGIX
      GROUP, INC.By:
              /s/ Gary CilevitzGary
      CilevitzPresident,
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
  Officer
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: 3Federal Reserve Bank of: PhiladelphiaFilings received during the week ending October 31, 2020FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE