alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BRYANT v. TEXAS & N. O. R. CO. et al.

No. 2671.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 13, 1944.

Pugh, Lanier & Pugh, of Thidodaux, and A. Deutsche O’Neal, of Houma, for appellant.

*899Harry McCall, of New Orleans, Ellender *&*Wright, of Houma, and Gill & Simon and Carroll Montet, all of New Orleans, for ap-pellees.

OTT, Judge.

In this suit the plaintiff seeks to recover the total sum of $42,365.50 from the Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company, J. W. Radcliffe, J. K. White and Earl Hudson for the death of her husband caused from the same crossing accident in which Frank H. Wright was killed. The issues in this case are the same as those in the case of Mrs. Pauline Fulmer Wright et al. v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., La.App., 19 So.2d 894. For the reasons assigned in the Wright case, this day decided, the judgment in the above case will be affirmed insofar as it dismissed the suit against the railroad and the two trainmen, but the judgment will be reversed and rendered in favor of plaintiff against the defendant Hudson.

The deceased Bryant was a young man only twenty-five years of age and was earning a good salary at the time of his death. The plaintiff has proven funeral expenses incurred by her on account of the death of her husband in the sum of $245.50. As we said in the case of Mrs. Wright against this same defendant, Hudson, his ability to respond in damages should be taken into consideration, and as it does not appear that he is possessed of any considerable means or income, and had no public liability insurance on his automobile, we will fix the award much lower than we would under different circumstances. In addition to the funeral expenses, we have decided to fix all other items of damage at the sum of $3,500.

For the reasons hereinabove assigned, and for the reasons assigned in the case of Mrs. Pauline Fulmer Wright against the same defendants, supra, it is ordered that insofar as the judgment appealed from dismissed the suit against the defendants, Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company, J. W. Radcliffe and J. K. White, the said judgment is hereby affirmed; insofar as said judgment dismissed the suit against the defendant, Earl Hudson, the same is hereby reversed and set aside, and it is now ordered that there be judgment herein in favor of the plaintiff, Mrs. Erita Le Bryant, and against the defendant, Earl Hudson, in the full sum of $3,745.50, with legal interest thereon from judicial demand, and for all cost of the suit.
#### Emmons Moser, Doing Business as Westminster Sales, Respondent, *v.*Louis C. Fieland, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 15, 1956.

*Clarence S. Barasch*for appellant.

*Samuel Bader*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

A counterclaim need not be related to the issues of the complaint. In accordance with the statute (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 262, 266), a counterclaim may be any cause of action in favor of the defendant. The statute is to be given a liberal construction to effectuate its purpose to avoid multiplicity of suits and allow determination of all' controversies between litigants in one action. The only condition attached to its interposition is whether it can be conveniently and fairly determined in connection with the cause of action. *(Nussbaum*v. *Sobel,*269 App. Div. 105.) Moreover, interposition of a counterclaim in a larger amount than the claim of the plaintiff precludes summary judgment to the plaintiff. *(Plaut*v. *Plaut,*255 App. Div. 375.)

The judgment and order granting partial summary judgment and order granting plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s counterclaim should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motions denied. The order denying defendant’s cross motion should be affirmed.

Eder, Hecht and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order' reversed, etc.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-92,522-01

EX P ARTE OKEZIE ULEANYA, A ppl icant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1191515-A IN THE 337 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant pleade d g uilty to arson and was sentenc ed to three y ear s’ imprison me n t. Applicant filed t his application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant conte nds that plea wa s involuntary beca use trial counse l failed to inform him of the immigra tion conseque nces of his plea. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S. 356 (2010); Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52 (1985); Ex parte Argent , 393 S.W .3d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Acc ording ly , the rec ord should be develope d. The trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall orde r trial counse l to respond to Applicant’s c laim. I n developing the record,2

the trial cour

t may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I f the trial c ourt elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall deter

mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I t appea rs Applicant is re p re s en t ed by counsel. I f Applicant is indige nt and wants to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to re prese nt him at the hear ing. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether trial counsel’s perf o rm an ce was defic ient and Applicant would have insisted on a trial but for counsel’s alleg ed defic ient perf

ormanc e. The trial court shall make finding s as to whether Appli ca n t wa s re moved from t h e country while this application has been pending

. The trial court may make any other finding s and conc lusions that it deems a ppropriate in response to Applica nt’s claim. The trial court shall make findings o f fa ct and conclusions of law withi n ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objec tions, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: April 28, 2021 Do not publish
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02479-MSK-MJW

MELVIN J. SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

EG&G/LEAR SIEGLER SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

DATED this 11th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02479-MSK-MJW Document 7 Filed 10/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

# Time and Date:

11 a.m., Friday, October 17, 2008. 

# Place:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. 

# Status:

Closed. 

# Matters to be Considered:

Surveillance Matters. 

# Contact Person for More Infor mation:

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084. 

Sauntia S. Warfield 

Staff Assistant. 

 [FR Doc. E8-23420 Filed 9-30-08; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 9, 2004*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.114 Savings Institutions1** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000766041
<NAME> CENTRAL SPRINKLER CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999             OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999             APR-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1                       1
<CASH>                                          13,761                  13,761
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,099                  52,099
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (6,716)                 (6,716)
<INVENTORY>                                     43,501                  43,501
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,062                 114,062
<PP&E>                                          77,103                  77,103
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (34,050)                (34,050)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 165,389                 165,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,340                  46,340
<BONDS>                                         69,381                  69,381
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            56                      56
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,949                  33,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   165,389                 165,389
<SALES>                                         58,040                 108,768
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,040                 108,768
<CGS>                                           40,913                  77,585
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,913                  77,585
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,612                  23,977
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,166                   2,531
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,349                   4,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,093                   1,494
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,256                   3,181
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,256                   3,181
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.68                    0.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.67                    0.95


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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 Key
Tronic Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended July 2, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), I, Craig D. Gates, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: September 12, 2011



/s/ Craig D. GatesCraig D. GatesPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### LAFRENZ v. LABAW (BARRON, Intervener).

No. 6618.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 30, 1944.

John G. Gibbs, of Natchitoches, for appellant.

B. B. Breazeale, of Natchitoches, for curator.

J. D. Rusca, of Natchitoches, for ap-pellee.

HARDY, Judge.

For the reasons set forth in our opinion of October 28, 1943, 19 So.2d 104, this case was remanded to the Tenth District Court, Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, for completion of the record. The matter now comes before us on a showing by the plaintiff-appellee to the effect that documentary evidence of the tax redemption has been lost. In support of this statement with reference to the lost document, there are attached certificates of the clerk to the effect that a search of the Clerk’s Office has failed to disclose the redemption certificate, and of the Sheriff and Tax Collector to the effect that redemption was actually made and receipt issued. Plaintiff-appellee prays that in the event this Court does not accept the certificates as above noted, the cause be again remanded for the purpose of retrial.

The application is opposed by the inter-venor-appellant on the ground that the petition of appellee setting forth reasons for inability to comply with the order of this Court was filed after the delay for rehearing had elapsed. The nature of the matter submitted to this Court for determination has no possible connection with an application for rehearing on the Court’s original order to remand, and, therefore, we find no merit in the contention advanced by the intervenor.

Accordingly, it is ordered that this case be remanded to the Tenth District Court in and for Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, for retrial only with reference to the taking of evidence upon the point set forth in our original opinion of October 28, 1943.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge David L. West

Criminal No. 11-PO-00149-DLW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. MARK L. HALPER,

Defendant.

 

MINUTE ORDER SETTING HEARING

 

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID L. WEST

The Defendant has filed Motion for Injunctive Relief - Temporary and Amended Motion for

Injunctive Relief - Temporary [Docs. #88 & #89].

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court will hear these motions on April 16, 2013 at

3:00 p.m. along with any motions filed regarding modification of the Defendant’s probation.

DATED: March 29, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

s/David L. West 

United States Magistrate Judge
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                         STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
                         1995 EQUITY PARTICIPATION PLAN,
                  AS AMENDED THROUGH MARCH 5, 1999 (the "Plan")
           (As adopted by the Board of Directors on March 9, 2000)


Section 3.1(ix) of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced. in
lieu thereof, with the following:


      "(ix)    [INTENTIONALLY DELETED]"
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jacinta Sit, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-K of Oxford Technologies, Inc.



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.







|/s/ Jacinta Sit                                               | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Jacinta Sit, President                                        | 
|(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) | 



Date:   April 23, 2009
EXHIBIT 21

MATERIAL SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                               |  |                     |  |             |  
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | ----------- | -
|Name                                           |  | Country             |  | % Ownership |  
|MSC International Company                      |  | U.S.A. (California) |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Flyer, LLC                                 |  | U.S.A. (Delaware)   |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software Australia Pty Ltd.                |  | Australia           |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software Asia Pty Ltd.                     |  | Australia           |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Brasil Software e Engenharia Ltda.         |  | Brazil              |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software Ltd.                              |  | Canada              |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software s.r.o.                            |  | Czech Republic      |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software SARL                              |  | France              |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software GmbH                              |  | Germany             |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software China (Hong Kong) Limited         |  | Hong Kong           |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software S.r.l.                            |  | Italy               |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software Corporation India Private Limited |  | India               |  | 100         | %
|Estech Corporation                             |  | Japan               |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software Ltd.                              |  | Japan               |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software Korea Corporation                 |  | Korea               |  | 100         | %
|Compumod Sdn. Bhd.                             |  | Malaysia            |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software Benelux B.V.                      |  | Netherlands         |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software AS                                |  | Norway              |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software Sp. zo.o                          |  | Poland              |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.             |  | Singapore           |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software Simulating Reality, S.A.          |  | Spain               |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software Sweden A.B.                       |  | Sweden              |  | 100         | %
|MSC.Software Limited                           |  | United Kingdom      |  | 100         | %
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      13,398,162
<SECURITIES>                                23,858,856
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,804,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                   335,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,017,805
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,654,889
<PP&E>                                       6,589,599
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,241,722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,003,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,518,780
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    38,002,203
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,424,812
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,003,900
<SALES>                                     27,408,126
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,408,126
<CGS>                                       14,383,459
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,383,459
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               156,165
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,317
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,939,702
<INCOME-TAX>                                   496,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,443,702
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,443,702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80
        

</TABLE>