alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BACHUS v. TOYE BROS. YELLOW CAB CO., Inc.*

No. 14427.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 19, 1932.

David Sessler, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Jos. Rosenberg, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

*

 Rehearing denied January 16, 1933.

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiff received injuries in an automobile accident and seeks recovery therefor. In the court below it was contended that there was no liability, but, it is now conceded that, under the evidence in the record, the only question for our consideration is whether the amount of the judgment rendered, to wit, $450, is correct.

The injuries consisted of a lacerated incised wound in the forehead and another small cut on top of the head. The first injury required ¡five sutures. The latter seems to have been of minor consequence. Plaintiff was confined to her bed for less than a week and she was under regular treatment of her physician for about two weeks, although he was required to visit her periodically for a short time after that. The scar on top of the head is entirely 'hidden by hair and the evidence indicates that it will completely disappear in time. The other scar on the forehead is slightly more than two inches in length and is partially hidden by hair. Plaintiff is forty-seven years of age and has been married for twenty-four years.

In argument before us, counsel for plaintiff contended that the amount of the award should be increased to $600. There is so little difference between the $450 allowed and the $600 now claimed that we cannot undertake to grant the increase asked for. In determining what is just remuneration for physical injuries courts cannot attain the accuracy which is possible in other cases such as those on notes or for goods sold, etc. On the other-hand, the award seems to be consistent with awards heretofore made in similar cases and for that reason we do not think it should be reduced. It is apparent that the injuries were not particularly serious for no claim is made for medical services. Though this is explained on the ground that the physician who treated plaintiff had known her for some forty years and that they were close friends, still we cannot but believe that, if the injuries had been very serious and had required extended treatment, some bill would have been rendered. At any rate we feel that substantial justice is done by the judgment as rendered.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

HIGGINS, J., being absent, takes no part.

*915MEMORANDUM DECISIONS
#### FRANCIS v. PLAQUEMINES PARISH DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE et al.

No. 18880.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 15, 1947.

*654Severn T. Darden, George Piazza, Du-four Bayle, and Sidney de Armas, all of New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Leander H. Perez, of New Orleans, and Bruce Nunez, of Arabi, for defendants-appellants.

JANVIER, Judge.

The facts of this case and the legal questions presented are identical with those which we considered in Yuratich v. Plaquemines Parish Democratic Executive Committee et al., 32 So.2d 647, with the sole exception that in this case, Owen D. Francis, the contestee, is shown to have owned property of the assessed value of $200. It is shown that'he had purchased the said property for $500 on October 8, 1946. Unfortunately for Francis, however, the Act of 1894, No. 94, provides that a Police Juror must own property of an “assessed value” of $250, and this does not give us, nor any other Court, nor any other Committee the right to hold that the purchase price and not the assessed value should be considered in determining the eligibility of a candidate. The law specifically requires that the assessed value of such property be at least $250, and the Democratic State Central Committee as we have held in the Yuratich case, made the same requirement. We do not see that any distinction can be based on this fact.

For the reasons given in the Yuratich case, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the District Court be annulled and set aside, and that the ruling of the Plaquemines Parish Democratic Executive Committee, holding that Owen D. Francis did not qualify according to law, be and it is reinstated, and therefore, it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that Owen D. Francis be and he is declared to be ineligible to become a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the office of member of the Police Jury for the Tenth Ward for the Parish of Plaquemines; ap-pellee to pay all costs.

Reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



   <ARTICLE> 5

   <S>                            <C>
   <PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
   <FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
   <PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1999
   <PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1999
   <CASH>                             143,565
   <SECURITIES>                       317,250
   <RECEIVABLES>                    1,462,021
   <ALLOWANCES>                             0
   <INVENTORY>                        467,916
   <CURRENT-ASSETS>                 2,460,937
   <PP&E>                           3,560,288
   <DEPRECIATION>                   1,296,054
   <TOTAL-ASSETS>                   5,034,107
   <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              479,353
   <BONDS>                                  0
   <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
   <PREFERRED>                              0
   <COMMON>                         2,813,248
   <OTHER-SE>                         757,333
   <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     5,034,107
   <SALES>                          3,001,719
   <TOTAL-REVENUES>                 3,943,171
   <CGS>                            2,698,958
   <TOTAL-COSTS>                            0
   <OTHER-EXPENSES>                 1,367,026
   <LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
   <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  35,529
   <INCOME-PRETAX>                   (122,375)
   <INCOME-TAX>                          (556)
   <INCOME-CONTINUING>                      0
   <DISCONTINUED>                           0
   <EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
   <CHANGES>                                0
   <NET-INCOME>                      (121,819)
   <EPS-BASIC>                         (.04)
   <EPS-DILUTED>                         (.04)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

CHIEF JUDGE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

Courtroom Deputy: Patricia Glover Date: May 20, 2013

Court Reporter: Mary George

Probation Officer: Gary Burney

Interpreter: Melinda Gonzales-Hibner

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00412-MSK

Parties: Counsel:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, James Boma

Plaintiff,

v.

GUADALUPE RUIZ-GUARDADO Richard Stuckey

Defendant.

SENTENCING MINUTES

______________________________________________________________________________

1:36 p.m. Court in session.

Defendant present in custody.

Interpreter sworn.

Change of Plea Hearing on February 13, 2013. Defendant pled guilty to Counts 1, 7 and 10

of the Superseding Indictment.

Parties received and reviewed the presentence report and all addenda.

The parties do not dispute the facts contained in the presentence report.

The parties do not dispute the calculation of the sentence under the Federal Sentencing

Guidelines as set forth in the original presentence report.

The Government does request departure (Doc. #546) and per oral modification. Argument.

The defendant does contend that the sentence should be different from that calculated under the

Sentencing Guidelines in light of the sentencing objectives set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section

3553(a). Argument.

Allocution. - Statements made by: The Government, the defendant, defense counsel.

Case 1:11-cr-00412-REB-DW Document 561 Filed 05/20/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Sentencing Minutes

Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger

Page 2

After consideration of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3553 (a), the Court announces the sentence it

intends to impose as reflected in the record. Counsel are offered the opportunity for further

argument. No further argument.

ORDER: The Government’s Motion for Downward Departure (Doc. #546) and oral

amendment to same is GRANTED .

THE DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED AS REFLECTED IN THE RECORD. Defendant is

sentenced to “time served”.

The defendant is advised of his right to appeal.

ORDER: Defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal for the

District of Colorado.

2:16 p.m. Court in recess.

Total Time: 40 minutes.

Hearing concluded.

Case 1:11-cr-00412-REB-DW Document 561 Filed 05/20/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHARLES E. WERMUTH CO., Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14118.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 21, 1932.

E. Howard MeCaleb, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Charles J. Rivet, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons given in State of Louisiana v. Moore (La. App.) 140 So. 516, decided March 7, 1932, this cause is transferred to the Supreme Court.

In view of the provisions of Act No. 19 of 1912 it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that this appeal be, and it is, transferred to the Supreme Court, of Louisiana to be disposed of according to law; the transfer to be made within sixty days after this judgment becomes final and, if not.so made, then the appeal to be deemed dismissed; defendant and appellant to pay the costs of appeal in this court, the remaining costs to await final determination of the matter.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10668 Conference Calendar

DONALD FRENCH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR; M. LAUGHLIN, WARDEN; TRAVIS MACPHERSON; HOUSTON SALVAGE POOL; DONALD YATES; JOHNNY KLEVENHAGEN; TOMMY No Middle Name THOMAS, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:97-CV-125-C

- - - - - - - - - - December 9, 1997 Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Texas prisoner Donald French, no. 720074, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. French does not argue whether the district court erred by dismissing his civil rights action due to his failure to complyNo. 97-10668 -2- with that court’s order requiring him to provide a certified copy of his inmate trust account in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which is the only proper issue for appeal.
See Searcy v. Houston Lighting & Power Co. , 907 F.2d 562, 564 (5th Cir. 1990). Rather, French insists on arguing on appeal the merits of the issues he raised in his originally filed complaint. Because French does not address the proper issue for review, he has abandoned it. See Brinkmann v. Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because French fails to address the proper issue for appeal, his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution French that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, French is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Boardof Directors 

DCT Industrial Trust Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in registration statement Nos. 333-137929 and 333-145252 on Form S-8 and registration statement Nos. 333-141910, 333-141913, and 333-145253 on Form S-3 of DCT Industrial TrustInc. of our report dated February 29, 2008, except as to the 2007 information in paragraph 59 of note 2, paragraph 9 of note 3, paragraph 3 of note 7, paragraph 7 of note 9, note 11, paragraphs 3, 5, 9, and 10 of note 12, paragraph 1 of note14, note15, and note 16, which are as of February 26, 2010, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, comprehensive income (loss) and noncontrolling interests, and cash flows of DCT Industrial TrustInc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007, which report appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of DCT Industrial Trust Inc. 

**/s/ KPMG LLP**

Denver, Colorado 

February 26, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997             FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996             NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                          221948                  221948
<SECURITIES>                                    126908                  126908
<RECEIVABLES>                                   108881                  108881
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      20929                   20929
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                744270                  744270
<PP&E>                                         3019707                 3019707
<DEPRECIATION>                               (1846535)               (1846535)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3385360                 3385360
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           113841                  113841
<BONDS>                                          11663                   11663
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        197318                  197318
<OTHER-SE>                                     2795338                 2795338
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3385360                 3385360
<SALES>                                         337133                 1074389
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 32443                  134072
<CGS>                                           166245                  549421
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   276213                  898684
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5230                   10319
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (249000)                (774931)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (72106)                (239454)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (176894)                (535477)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (176894)                (535477)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.179)                 (0.543)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.179)                 (0.543)
        

</TABLE>
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Richard F. Cebull, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KULDIP KAUR, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 08-74477 Agency No. A099-330-481
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 15, 2010 ** Seattle, Washington Before: RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and CEBULL, Chief District Judge. *** Kuldip Kaur, a national and citizen of India, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration 

# FILED
JUL 19 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 judge’s (IJ) decision denying her appli cation for asylum and withholding of removal under both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination under the REAL ID Act, which applies. See Pub. L. No. 109-13, Div. B, Title I, § 101(a)(3), 119 Stat. 231, 303 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Although Kaur gave detailed testimony about other things, her testimony about harassment she claimed to suffer was vague, generalized , and devoid of details. Likewise, the affidavits submitted by the sarpanch of her village and Kaur’s brother fail to mention any problems that Kaur experienced. Given the totality of the circumstances, the IJ was not compelled to find her credible. That being so, there was no credible evidence to support her claim for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under CAT. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 201 (Thursday, October 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 61416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24490]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2390-056]


Northern States Power Company of Wisconsin, d/b/a Excel Energy 
Inc.; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment

October 8, 2008.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 
as amended, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations (18 CFR Part 380), the Office of Energy Projects has 
reviewed an application for amendment of license and has prepared an 
environmental assessment (EA) regarding the licensee's request to amend 
the project license to include the jurisdictional Turtle-Flambeau 
Storage Reservoir as a project feature of the Big Falls Project. The 
Big Falls Project is located on the Flambeau River in Rusk County, 
Wisconsin. This EA concludes that the proposed action, with recommended 
measures, would not constitute a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the EA are available in the Public Reference Room of the 
Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A, Washington, DC 
204265. The EA also may be viewed on the Commission's Internet Web site 
(http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket 
number ``P-2390'' in the docket number field to access the document. 
For assistance with eLibrary, contact <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87c1c2d5c4c8e9ebeee9e2d4f2f7f7e8f5f3c7e1e2f5e4a9e0e8f1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5f3f0e7f6fadbd9dcdbd0e6c0c5c5dac7c1f5d3d0c7d69bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call toll-free at (866) 208-3372, or for TTY contact (202) 502-8659.
    For further information regarding this notice, please contact 
CarLisa Linton at (202) 502-8416.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-24490 Filed 10-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

** **

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-98073on Form S-8 of Community Valley Bancorp of our report, dated March 23,2009 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements appearingin this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Community Valley Bancorp for theyear ended December 31, 2008.

 

 
|                    | /s/  Perry-Smith LLP |
|-------------------------|----------------------|
|                    |                 |
| Sacramento,  California |                 |
| March 23,  2009    |                 |

 

----
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
CardioDynamics International Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statements No. 333-
40969 on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-31275, 333-65331, 333-69669, 333-69663, and 333-
69659 on Form S-3 of CardioDynamics International Corporation of our report
dated January 15, 1999, except as to Note 4, which is dated as of February 26,
1999, relating to the balance sheets of CardioDynamics International
Corporation as of November 30, 1998 and 1997, and the related statements of
operations, shareholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for the years then
ended, which report appears in the November 30, 1998, annual report on Form 10-K
of CardioDynamics International Corporation.


                                  /s/ KPMG LLP

San Diego, California
February 26, 1999
**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

** **

**INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’SCONSENT**

 

We consent to the inclusion in this Registration Statement of Iron HorseAcquisitions Corp. on Form S-1 of our report dated November    1, 2022, which includes an explanatory paragraph as to the Company's abilityto continue as a going concern with respect to our audit of the financial statements of Iron Horse Acquisitions Corp. as of December 31,2021 and for the period from November 23, 2021 (inception) through December 31, 2021, which report appears in the Prospectus, which ispart of this Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to our Firm under the heading “Experts” in such Prospectus.

 

 

/s/ Marcum LLP	

Marcum LLP

New York, NY
null

514.57355
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of EAU Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian D. Heinhold,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
      1350,
      as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
      best of my knowledge:





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




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





DATE:
      March 26, 2008





/s/
                Brian D. HeinholdBrian
                D. HeinholdChief
                Financial OfficerEAU
                Technologies, Inc.