alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JUNE 30,
1998 QUARTERLY REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          24,986
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,713
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,774
<PP&E>                                         148,203
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,795
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,417
<BONDS>                                         26,613
<COMMON>                                         2,350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,272
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,226
<SALES>                                          1,426
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,335
<CGS>                                            1,343
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,972
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 919
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,312
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,995
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,317
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,317
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
        

</TABLE>
#### CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. ELSTON BANK & TRUST COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

George W. English, Jr., E. B. Griffis, and R. R. Saunders, all of Fort Lauderdale, for plaintiffs in error.

Casey & Walton, of Miami, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of error dismissed on motion of counsel for the respective parties.
EXHIBIT 21

 

A.G. EDWARDS, INC.

REGISTRANT'S SUBSIDIARIES

 

	The following listing includes the registrant's directly-owned subsidiaries and indirectly-owned subsidiaries (certain subsidiaries which are not significant are omitted from the listing), all of which are included in the consolidated financial statements: 

|  Name of Company | State of Incorporation/Organization | Subsidiary of A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.DelawareRegistrant   A.G. Edwards Technology Group, Inc.MissouriA.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.AGE Commodity Clearing Corp.DelawareRegistrantEdwards Development CorporationMissouriRegistrantA.G. Edwards Trust Company FSBFederal CharterRegistrantA.G.E. Properties, Inc.MissouriRegistrantAGE Investments, Inc.DelawareRegistrant        Beaumont Insurance CompanyVermontAGE Investments, Inc.A.G. Edwards Capital, Inc.DelawareRegistrantAGE Capital Holding, Inc.DelawareRegistrantAGE International, Inc.DelawareRegistrant   A.G. Edwards & Sons (UK) LimitedUnited KingdomAGE International, Inc.CPI Qualified Plan Consultants, Inc.DelawareRegistrant |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000718944
<NAME> DYCO OIL AND GAS PROGRAM 1982-2 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         160,547
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,919
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               251,466
<PP&E>                                      38,332,779
<DEPRECIATION>                              37,992,126
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 616,939
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,877
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     513,212
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   616,939
<SALES>                                        582,641
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               590,407
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  372,724
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                217,683
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            217,683
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   217,683
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    27.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 14-5860

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

AVELINO CRUZ MARTINEZ, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., 

Respondent-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

) O R D E R

)

)

)

)

)

)

BEFORE: COLE, Chief Judge; BOGGS, BATCHELDER, MOORE, CLAY, GIBBONS, 

ROGERS, SUTTON, COOK McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, WHITE, 

STRANCH, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service have voted for the 

rehearing of this case en banc. Sixth Circuit Rule 35(b) provides as follows:

“The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous 

opinion and judgment of this court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case 

on the docket sheet as a pending appeal.”

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the previous decision and judgment of this court is 

vacated, the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 11-CV-02683-RBJ

ELLEN WESSLER and

MONTY WESSLER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COLONIAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE, a division of COLONIAL SAVINGS, F.A., 

WELLS FARGO BANK,

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRY SYSTEMPS, INC., 

EL PASO COUNTY PUBLIC TRUSTEE, 

and all unknown persons who claim any interest in the subject matter of this action,

Defendants.

ORDER TO SET SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The parties are ordered to set an initial 

scheduling conference in this Court (with Judge Jackson) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 

D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 no later than 45 days after all responsive pleadings are filed. Each 

party’s lead trial counsel shall attend the conference. The conference shall be held in Courtroom 

A-702, Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. The parties are 

directed to jointly contact Mary DeRosa by telephone at (303) 844-4694 or by email at 

Jackson_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov to obtain a scheduling conference date. 

A meeting for the purposes of attempting to agree on a scheduling order and satisfying 

the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) should be held no later than 21 days before the 

proposed scheduling order is tendered. The proposed scheduling order, which should be 

prepared as described in Appendix F to the local rules, should be tendered no later than five days 

before the scheduling conference. The proposed scheduling order should set forth the parties’

agreement or their respective positions on the matters set forth in Appendix F. A copy of 

instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form scheduling order can be 

downloaded from the Court’s website (http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx).

Case 1:11-cv-02683-RBJ Document 18 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
DATED this 19th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02683-RBJ Document 18 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### BARFIELD v. MARRON et al.

No. 6731.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 25, 1944.

Anders & Anders, of Winnsboro, for appellant.

Snyder & Sevier, of Tallulah, for appel-lees.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

Plaintiff’s suit is for damages allegedly sustained by him from being maliciously and wrongfully arrested and thrown in jail by the defendants or one of them acting in concert with the others. The gravamen of his complaint is reflected from Articles 13 and 14 of the petition, which we quote, to-wit:

> “Petitioner further shows and avers that by reason of said malicious and unfounded arrest and imprisonment, which was widely publicized among the people where he resided in Tensas Parish, Louisiana, he has suffered loss of reputation, insult, humiliation and anxiety of mind, as well as anxiety of mind over his physical condition resulting from said imprisonment, and has been damaged thereby in the sum of $2,-500.00.

> “Petitioner further shows and avers that by reason of the malice, bad motives, wantonness, negligence, oppression and the total careless disregard for another’s rights, shown by the said defendants, in this malicious and unfounded arrest and imprisonment, petitioner has been damaged in the further sum of $2,500.00, and is therefore, entitled to a further decree in the sum of $2,500.00 as exemplary and punitory damages.”

Issue was joined by answer and the case was tried upon the issues tendered by the pleadings. Plaintiff’s demand was rejected and his suit dismissed. He appealed to this court.

During argument of appellant’s counsel the apparent lack of jurisdiction of this court of the subject matter involved was called to his attention. He and counsel for the defendants concurred in the court’s suggestion that the appeal had been erroneously lodged here.

The amount sued for is very much in excess of $2,000. The damages sought did not result from physical injuries.

Under the unambiguous language of Article 7, Section 10, of the Constitution, wherein the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is defined, jurisdiction of the present appeal reposes in that court. Spearman v. Toye Bros. Auto & Taxicab Co., Inc., 164 La. 677, 114 So. 591; Newsom v. Starns et al., 174 La. 955, 142 So. 138; Clarke v. Bandelin, 6 La.App. 564; Searcy v. Interurban Transportation Co., Inc., et al., La.App., 179 So. 93.

*851The appeal, pursuant to Act No. 19 of 1912, will be transferred to the Supreme Court.

For the reasons herein assigned, the appeal in this case is hereby transferred to the Supreme Court and appellant is accorded sixty days from finality of this order in which to file transcript in that court; and upon his failure to do so within said period, he will be deemed, held and considered for all purposes to have abandoned his appeal.

Appellant is cast for costs in this court.
#### LAKESIDE APARTMENT HOTEL, Inc. v. ZIMMERMAN.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without .opinion;
1 

No. 04-15-00587-CV

In the Fourth District Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

RAFAEL ZUNIGA,

Appellee.

On Appeal from the 229th Judicial District Court

Duval County, Texas

Cause No. DC-13-112-A

JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2), Appellant Essex 

Insurance Company (“Appellant”), and Appellee Rafael Zuniga (“Appellee”),

jointly move the Court to dismiss this appeal. 

1. Appellant and Appellee are the sole parties to this appeal. 

2. Appellant and Appellee have fully settled all matters between them 

related to the subject matter of the appeal and wish to dismiss the appeal to 

effectuate their settlement. 

ACCEPTED

04-15-00587-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

9/24/2015 4:55:25 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/24/2015 4:55:25 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
2

3. As indicated by their signatures below, both Appellant and Appellee 

join in this motion, and the parties will bear their own costs associated with the 

appeal.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

For these reasons, Appellant and Appellee respectfully request that the Court 

dismiss this appeal and assess costs of the appeal against the party incurring same.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joseph A. Ziemianski

Joseph A. Ziemianski

State Bar No. 00797732

E-mail: jziemianski@cozen.com

Bryan P. Vezey

State Bar No. 00788583

E-mail: bvezey@cozen.com

COZEN O’CONNOR

One Houston Center

1221 McKinney St., Suite 2900

Houston, Texas 77010

Telephone: (832) 214-3900

Telecopier: (832) 214-3905

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT,

ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY
3

/s/ Robert P. Wilson *Signed by Permission

Robert P. Wilson

State Bar No. 21718575

rwilson@thomasjhenrylaw.com

Roger L. Turk

State Bar No. 00788561

rlturk@thomasjhenrylaw.com

LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. HENRY

521 Starr Street

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Telephone: (361) 985-0600

Facsimile: (361) 985-0601

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE,

RAFAEL ZUNIGA

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned counsel certifies that I communicated with Robert Wilson,

counsel for Appellee, on September 24, 2015, regarding this motion to dismiss 

appeal, and he stated that his client joins in the relief sought in this motion.

/s/ Bryan P. Vezey

Bryan P. Vezey
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On September 24, 2015, I electronically filed this Joint Motion to Dismiss 

Appeal with the Clerk of the Court using the eFile.TXCourts.gov electronic filing 

system, which will send notification of such filing to the following (unless 

otherwise noted below). 

Robert P. Wilson

Roger L. Turk

LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. HENRY

521 Starr Street

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Facsimile: (361) 985-0601

E-mail: rwilson@thomasjhenrylaw.com

E-mail: rlturk@thomasjhenrylaw.com

Attorneys for Appellee, Rafael Zuniga

/s/ Joseph A. Ziemianski

Joseph A. Ziemianski
#### In the Matter of the Application of Bryant McQUILLEN and Samuel Gottlieb, Petitioners, for a Writ of Mandamus and for a Writ of Prohibition to be directed against the Hon. William C. COLEMAN, Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.*

No. 4245.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Sept. 28, 1937.

James Morfit Mullen and R. Contee Rose, both of Baltimore, Md., and Arthur Berenson, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.

Wm. L. Marbury, Jr., and R. Dorsey Watkins, both of Baltimore, Md., opposed.

*

Writ of certiorari denied 58 S.Ct. 526, 82 L.Ed. —.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for mandamus and prohibition dismissed. Order filed.
March 24, 2000

Mr. Timothy Scrantom
Ten State Street, L.L.P.
10 State Street
Charleston, South Carolina 29401

Envirometrics, Inc.
9229 University Boulevard
Charleston, SC  29401

     Re: 20,032 Shares of Series B Preferred Stock of  Envirometrics,  Inc. (the
"Company") Held By Ten State Street, L.L.P.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to our Agreement of June30, 1998, (the "Agreement," Paragraphs 10-24 of
which are fully incorporated  herein by reference and ratified and reaffirmed in
their  entirety  by the  undersigned),  we hereby  notify  you of our  intent to
convert the  above-referenced  shares of Preferred Stock (the "Preferred Stock")
to  Envirometrics  Common Stock (the  "Common  Stock") at a ratio of 5 shares of
Common Stock for one share of Preferred Stock.  Kindly effect this conversion on
the tenth day  following  your receipt of this notice or as soon  thereafter  as
practicable.

We are enclosing  herewith any Certificate(s) we hold representing the Preferred
Stock. If you are holding any  Certificate(s)  representing the Preferred Stock,
you are hereby  instructed  to cancel same upon the issuance of the Common Stock
to us.

With regard to any dividends which have accrued on the Preferred  Stock, you are
hereby  instructed  to issue  Common  Stock to us in lieu of such  accruals at a
price of $0.40 per  share.  We  understand  that no  fractional  shares  will be
issued, and shares will be rounded off to the nearest whole number.

We represent  that: (a) we have  familiarized  ourselves with the affairs of the
Company,  and we are  aware of the  Agreement  for the  Exchange  of Stock  (the
"Catapult  Agreement")  between  the  Company and The  Catapult  Group,  Inc. of
Atlanta,  GA; (b) we have  received and  reviewed a copy of the  Catapult  press
release dated March 13, 2000 which refers to the Catapult Agreement;  and (c) we
are aware that the Company  intends to effect a split of the Common  Stock prior
to the closing of the  Catapult  Agreement at a ratio of one new share of Common
Stock being issued for every ten shares then outstanding.


Sincerely yours,
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

I, Gilbert G. Lundstrom, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
TierOne Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

      (1)   The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
            December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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

Date: March 5, 2004             By: /s/ Gilbert G. Lundstrom
                                   -------------------------------------------
                                   Gilbert G. Lundstrom, Chairman of the Board
                                   and Chief Executive Officer

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to TierOne Corporation and will be retained
by TierOne Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 52 Filed 06/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 52 Filed 06/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 52 Filed 06/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 52 Filed 06/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 52 Filed 06/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 52 Filed 06/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 52 Filed 06/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 52 Filed 06/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 52 Filed 06/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 52 Filed 06/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Hickory Tech Corporation (HickoryTech)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. Duffy,Chief Executive Officer of HickoryTech, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of HickoryTech.

 

 
| /s/ John E.  Duffy       |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| John E.  Duffy           |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
| August 12,  2003         |

 

1

----
EXHIBIT 24.2



POWER OF ATTORNEY



KNOW BY ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned director of World Health Alternatives, Inc., a Florida Corporation, does make, constitute and appoint Richard E.
McDonald, with full power and authority his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, for him and his name, place and stead in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report of World Health Alternatives, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2004, and to file such Annual Report, so signed, with all exhibits thereto, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby further granting unto said attorney-in-fact full power and authority to do and perform any and all acts and
things requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person; the undersigned hereby ratifies and confirms all that said attorney and agent, shall do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE UNDERSIGNED HAS HEREUNTO SET HIS
HAND AND SEAL THIS 15th day of April, 2005.



|                                    |  |       
|----------------------------------- |  | ------
|/s/ Frederick R. Jackson, Sr.       |  | (SEAL)
|Frederick R. Jackson, Sr., Director |  |
#### H. S. SMITH et al., Appellants, v. S. L. DITTO, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.

Sept. 21, 1936.

Stewart & Presson, of Fort Myers, for appellants.

E. Dixie Beggs, of Fort Myers, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal brings for review final decree in suit to foreclose a mortgage.

There are assignments of error and cross-assignments of error.

The real question involved is simply whether or not there is substantial evidence to support the decree, which question we must answer in the affirmative and affirm the decree.

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

ELLIS, P. J., and TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and BROWN and DAVIS, JJ., concur in the opinion and judgment.