alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Williams *v.*Cambria & Indiana Railroad Company, Appellant.

Practice, *G. P.*— Jurors—Alleged' *disqualification*— Continuance *—Proper refusal.*

A juror is not disqualified to serve in condemnation proceedings by reason of the fact that his grandfather has brought an action against another railroad company for loss resulting from the condemnation of land in another section of the county, and the refusal of a continuance applied for because of the alleged disqualification of such juror is a proper exercise of judicial discretion, particularly where the application is not made until after the jury has viewed the premises, and the balance of the panel has been discharged.

Argued. Oct. 5, 1914.

Appeal, No. 189, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. Indiana Co., *173March T., 1910, No. 294, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Hugh E. Williams and Edward H. Williams v. Cambria & Indiana Railroad Company.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Elkin, JJ.

Affirmed.

Appeal from award of viewers in condemnation proceedings. Before Telford, P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict for plaintiff for $2,810.40 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned,*among others, was in refusing a continuance.

*D. B. Taylor,*for appellant.

*8. M. Jack,*with him *J. M. Banks,*for appellee.

January 2, 1915:

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Fell,

The main question raised by this appeal and the only one not considered in the appeal of Parry v. Cambria & Indiana Railway Company, in which the opinion of this court, affirming the judgment has been filed, is whether the trial judge erred in not withdrawing a juror and continuing the ease on the application of the defendant. The action was to recover for the appropriation of a part of the plaintiff’s farm and the application for continuance was made after the jury had been sworn and had viewed the premises in question and the balance of the panel had been discharged. The ground of the application was that one of the jurors was a grandson of a plaintiff in an action brought to recover for loss caused by the condemnation of a right of way in another section of the county and by another railroad company. It appeared from the examination of the juror that he had no knowledge of the parties to the action in which he had been impaneled and had no knowledge of the case. The measure of damages in each case would depend upon its *174peculiar facts and the only similarity between them was that in each the claim was for damages for condemnation of land taken or injured under the right of eminent domain. There was no ground for a principal challenge or for a challenge to the favor and the discretion of the court was wisely exercised in refusing the application.

The judgment is affirmed.
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 Quarterly Report of New generation Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jacques
Mot, 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, to my
knowledge 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 result of operations of the Company.

                                        /s/ Jacques Mot
                                            --------------------------
                                        Jacques Mot
                                        Chief Executive Officer

                                        November 30, 2006
#### Collins T. WILLIAMS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
Date:		Monthly observation date, end of period
Issuance, IPO:	IPO (initial public offering) issuance includes new equity issuance by companies that were not previously publicly traded. The offering prices of these securities are determined prior to the listing. Data are reported in billions of dollars at a monthly rate. 
Issuance, SEO:	SEO (seasoned equity offering) issuance includes new equity issuance by existing publicly traded companies. Data are reported in billions of dollars at a monthly rate.
M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 of HIDALGO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 30th day of

November, 2017, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Ruth Cabrera, Appellant,

v.

Fernando Torres and Torres Quality

Homes, Appellees.

CAUSE NO. 13-17-00574-CV (Tr.Ct.No. CL-13-2948-A)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 11th day of January, 2018.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK

FILE COPY
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


EXHIBIT 27.  FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

<ARTICLE>                       5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                    175,803
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             46,392
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               188,442
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          435,759
<PP&E>                                    342,549
<DEPRECIATION>                            202,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            588,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     364,261
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  1,247
<OTHER-SE>                                (798,395)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              588,878
<SALES>                                   77,958
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          77,958
<CGS>                                     41,418
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             41,418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          2,735,174
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (2,698,634)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (2,698,634)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              (2,698,634)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0
        



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

MEMORANDUM

Date: April 24, 2009

To: File

From: Gregory C. Langham, Clerk

Subject: Assignment of Oppenheimer Litigation

Pursuant to the authorization of Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel, all civil cases described as

Oppenheimer litigation filed in this district or transferred from another district, shall be assigned to Senior

Judge John L. Kane and Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya.

Case 1:11-cv-02602-JLK Document 2 Filed 10/05/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
FILED

September 6,

1995

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTION

CASA JUVENILE SERVICES ) HAMBLEN COUNTY

ASSOCIATION, INC. and ) 03A01-9503-JV-00099

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF )

HUMAN SERVICES )

)

Petitioners-Appellees )

 )

)

v. )

)

)

LORETTA NMN PHILLIPS ARRIETTA ) 

)

Respondent-Appellant )

) HON. MINDY NORTON SEALS,

and ) JUDGE

)

FLORENCIA ARRIETTA SALGADO )

)

Respondent )

)

IN RE: DUSTIN MATTHEW )

 ARRIETTA )

 D.O.B. 7-18-88 ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

C. E. BUD CUNNINGHAM OF MORRISTOWN FOR APPELLANT

CHARLES W. BURSON, Attorney General and Reporter, and MICHELLE

McGRIFF, Assistant Attorney General, OF NASHVILLE FOR APPELLEES

O P I N I O N

 Goddard, P.J. 
2

Loretta Phillips Arrietta, mother of Dustin Matthew

Arrietta, appeals a judgment of the Juvenile Court for Hamblen

County which terminated her parental rights. 
Rule 10. (a) Affirmance Without Opinion. The Court, with the 1

concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm the action of

the trial court by order without rendering a formal opinion when an opinion

would have no precedential value and one or more of the following

circumstances exist and are dispositive of the appeal:

(1) the Court concurs in the facts as found or as found by necessary

implication by the trial court.

(2) there is material evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

(3) no reversible error of law appears.

Such cases may be affirmed as follows: "Affirmed in accordance with

Court of Appeals Rule 10(a)."

3

She raises the following two issues on appeal:

I. Whether the Court erred in its failure to 

return the child to the Respondent/Appellant when

there was a clear abuse of discretion by DHS in

its treatment of Respondent/Appellant.

II. Whether there was clear and convincing evidence

that the termination of the parental rights was in

the child's best interests.

Our review of the record persuades us that the evidence

preponderates in favor of the Trial Court's actions as to both

issues. We accordingly conclude that this is an appropriate case

for affirmance under Rule 10(a) of this Court.1

The case is remanded for collection of costs below. 

Costs of appeal are adjudged against Ms. Arrietta and her surety.

_______________________________

Houston M. Goddard, P.J. 

CONCUR:

________________________________

Herschel P. Franks, J.

________________________________
4

Don T. McMurray, J.
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 23.  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. and Clayton Homes, Inc. on Form S-3 (File
No. 333-14033) of our report dated August 12, 1997, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of Clayton Homes, Inc. as of June 30, 1997 and
1996, and for the years ended June 30, 1997, 1996 and 1995, which report is
included in this Annual report on Form 10-k.




                                             /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                                             ----------------------------
                                             Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.






Knoxville, Tennesse
September 22, 1997
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Russound/FMP, Inc.,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 08-cv-213-SM

Future Home Systems;

and James Cahill d/b/a

Future Home Systems,

Defendants

ORDER OF RECUSAL

I hereby recuse myself from presiding over this case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

June 25, 2008

cc: Daniel E. Will, Esq.

Leigh S. Willey, Esq.

Richard B. McNamara, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00213-JL Document 12 Filed 06/25/08 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

1

403 U.S. 388 (1971).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30949

Summary Calendar

GEORGE A. BYNUM, JR.

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:07-CV-915

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Bynum, Jr., federal prisoner # 06013-078, appeals the 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit as frivolous and

for failure to state a claim. The magistrate judge construed his complaint as

raising claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,

1 and recommended dismissal. Bynum filed

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 14, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30949

2See Sobranes Recovery Pool I LLC v. Todd & Hughes Constr. Corp., 509 F.3d 216, 219

(5th Cir. 2007).

3See 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

2

objections. The district court rejected Bynum’s objections, and dismissed

Bynum’s claims for the reasons given by the magistrate.

We address our jurisdiction sua sponte.

2 By our reading of the pleadings,

Bynum asserted a Federal Tort Claims Act claim. We note also that Bynum

filed administrative claims for FTCA relief, and that the Government offered to

settle those claims. The magistrate did not address the FTCA claims, nor did

the district court who relied upon the magistrate’s recommendations. This loose

string strips the judgment of the required finality.3 Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal, leaving Bynum’s FTCA claims in the district court’s hands.

DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Richard E. McDonald, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of World Health Alternatives, Inc. (the Issuer);



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 Issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The Issuer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 Issuer 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 Issuer, 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 Issuer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 Issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Issuers fourth
fiscal quarter ending December 31, 2004 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The Issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the Issuers auditors and the audit committee of the Issuer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 Issuer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 Issuers internal control over
financial reporting.



|    |  |                                                                               
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /S/ RICHARD E. MCDONALD                                                       
|    |  | Richard E. McDonald Principal Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer,



Dated: May 13, 2005
# **Exhibit 31.1**

# ** **

I, R.Herbert Hampton, certify that:

 

1. Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Golden Cycle GoldCorporation:

 

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

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant andhave:

 

a.               Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

 

b.              [intentionallyomitted];

 

c.               Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

d.              Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

1.               All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

2.               Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: March 29,2006

 
|   | /s/  R. Herbert Hampton  |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | R.  Herbert Hampton      |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02442-WYD-MJW FTR - Courtroom A-502

Date: September 11, 2012 Courtroom Deputy, Ellen E. Miller

Parties

JOEL HUGHES,

Plaintiff(s),

Counsel

Timothy D. Edstrom

v.

WESLEY KVASNICKA, Denver Police Officer, and

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,

Jointly and Severally,

Defendant(s).

Joseph M. Rivera

COURTROOM MINUTES / MINUTE ORDER

HEARING: SHOW CAUSE HEARING / MOTION HEARING

Court in Session: 11:08 A.M.

Court calls case. Appearances of counsel. Pursuant to the Court’s Order [Docket No. 37],

Plaintiff also appears in person.

The Court raises Defendants’ Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examination Pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 [Docket No. 34, filed September 06, 2012] for argument. Based upon

statements made by plaintiff’s counsel and with no objection by plaintiff, 

It is ORDERED: Defendants’ MOTION TO COMPEL INDEPENDENT MEDICAL

EXAMINATION PURSUANT TO Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 [Docket No. 34, filed

September 06, 2012] is GRANTED for reasons as set forth on the record.

It is ORDERED: Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel, with defense counsel, are directed to go

forthwith to the office of defense counsel to execute medical releases.

Discussion is held regarding any possible extensions which may be needed.

 

Hearing concluded. Court in recess: 11:16 a.m. Total In-Court Time 00: 08

To order a transcript of this proceedings, contact Avery Wood Reports (303) 825-6119 or Toll Free 1-800-962-3345. 

Case 1:11-cv-02442-WYD-MJW Document 38 Filed 09/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Commonwealth *v.*Shumaker, Appellant.

Argued Jan. 10, 1910.

Appeal, No. 6,

May T., 1910, by defendant, from judgment of Superior Court, March T., 1909, No. 15, affirming judgment of Court of Quarter Sessions of Dauphin County, Sept. Sessions, 1907, No. 239, in case of Commonwealth v. John H.' Sanderson, Joseph M. Huston, James M. Shumaker, William P. Snyder and William L. Mathues.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment and sentence upon an indictment charging conspiracy to defraud the state of Pennsylvania.

*348The facts and the report of this case will be found in 40 Pa. Superior Ct. 547.

*■ Charles II. Bergner,*with him *Percy Allen Rose,*for appellant.

*James E. B. Cunningham,*deputy attorney general, and *D. T. Watson,*with them *John Fox Weiss,*district attorney, *John E. Fox, James Scarlet*and *M. Hampton Todd,*attorney general, for appellee.

Per Curiam,

March 7, 1910:

A majority of the court are of opinion that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed on the opinion of the Superior Court.

Judgment affirmed.