alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 34726.

Department One.

January 15, 1959.]

#### Otto Timm *et al., Respondents,*v. William L. Gilliland *et al., Appellants.*
      *1*

*433
      *Thomas P. Delaney, John H. McRae,*and *Howard Phillips (George E. Weigle,*of counsel), for appellants.

W. *Kenneth Jones*for respondents.

Reported in 334 P. (2d) 539.

Mallery, J.

The plaintiffs sued to enjoin the defendants from passing over their farmlands. The defendants cross-complained claiming an easement by prescription. The trial court granted the injunction, and the defendants appeal.

The appellants did not set out verbatim in their brief the findings of fact which they claimed to be erroneous, hence, the findings as made by the trial court must be accepted upon appeal as the established facts in the case. Rule on Appeal 43, 34A Wn. (2d) 47, as amended, effective January 2, 1953.

Appellants seek to escape the effect of the rule upon the theory that the portions of the findings of fact which are claimed to be error are in reality conclusions of law, and, hence, need not be set out verbatim in the brief.

The findings in question are that (1) appellants were using the roadway by virtue of permission granted by respondents, (2) respondents were not aware that appellants were using the roadway under a claim of right, and (3) appellants failed to present evidence proving their use of the roadway was adverse, open, notorious, hostile, exclusive, and continuous under any claim of right. The first two are obviously findings of fact. If the third, by reason of being a negative fact, is in the nature of a conclusion of law, it will still avail appellants nothing, since it is adequately supported by the preceding findings of fact.

The only other error claimed by appellants is that the trial court erred in failing to grant them an easement by implication. Appellants admit in their brief that this theory is being urged for the first time upon appeal, but argue that this court can now pass on it by holding that it was encompassed within the pleadings in the trial court. We do not agree.

*434In their pleadings, the respondents alleged that the appellants trespassed on their land without permission and without any right to do so. The appellants stood upon a general denial of these allegations. No hint that an easement by implication was being sought was given to the trial court. It did not err in failing to pass upon extraneous questions. We do not review the trial court’s action as to questions not submitted to it. *Lewis Pacific Dairymen’s Ass’n v. Turner,*50 Wn. (2d) 762, 314 P. (2d) 625; *Braman v. Kuper,*51 Wn. (2d) 676, 321 P. (2d) 275.

The judgment is affirmed.

Hill, Finley, Ott, and Hunter, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 We, Andrew F. Jacobs, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Phillip A.
Reinsch, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Capstead Mortgage
Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: May 4, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ ANDREW F. JACOBS

Andrew F. Jacobs
President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 4, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ PHILLIP A. REINSCH

Phillip A. Reinsch
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C., SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Hickory Tech Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, David A. Christensen, Chief Financial Officer ofHickoryTech, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(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/ David A. Christensen                          |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| David A. Christensen                              |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| August 1, 2007                                    |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Syniverse Holdings, LLC
and Syniverse Technologies, Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Raymond L. Lawless, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:



(1) 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 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 Companies.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: March 26, 2004 |  | /s/ RAYMOND L. LAWLESS 
|                      |  | Raymond L. Lawless     
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer



The above
certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1614

___________________________

Avera Cunningham

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

City of Kansas City, Missouri

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: December 29, 2016

Filed: January 4, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Avera Cunninghamappeals after theDistrictCourt granted summary judgment

1

to defendants in her action alleging employment discrimination under Title I and Title

The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Court for the

1

Western District of Missouri.
V of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 

After de novo review, we find no error in the District Court’s decision. See

Murchison v. Rogers, 779 F.3d 882, 886–87 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# mtntteb**~tates** 

# ((ourtof**~peaIs** 

# fortbejfeberaI((treutt

RICHARD REBSTOCK, Claimant-Appellant,


### v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARYOFVETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee.

2012-7169 Appeal from the United States Court ofAppeals for Veterans Claims in 12-1171, Judge RobertN. Davis.


### ONMOTION

ORDER Richard Rebstock moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperIS. Rebstock is incarcerated. Pursuant to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995, this court may not authorize the prosecution ofan appealby a prisonerwithoutthe prepayment offees. 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1915. A prisoner is no Case: 12-7169 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 10/19/2012RICHARD REBSTOCKv. SHINSEKI 2 longer afforded the alternative of proceeding without payment of filing fees, but must, in time, pay the $450 filing fee in its entirety. When funds exist, an initial partial payment must be made consisting of 20% ofthe greater of (a) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner's account or (b) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing ofthe notice of appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Thereafter, the prisoner is required to make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency with custody ofthe prisoner must forward payments from the prisoner's account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the $450 filing fee is paidin full. 

### Id. By separate letter, the custodian ofRebstock's prison account is being directed to make the necessary arrangements to forward the filing fee to the court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Rebstock's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
FOR THE COURT /s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk
s24 Case: 12-7169 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 10/19/2012
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 7, 2011

s0131 

# Order

February 7, 2011

141735 & (85)(89)(90)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141735 COA: 286912 Muskegon CC: 07-055536-FH ARTHUR CORTEZ GREER, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion to amen d the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The application for leave to appe al the June 10, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENI ED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motions to remand are

DENIED.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 17, 2009*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.220 Commercial Mortgages** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>

                                 Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Company Contacts:
Kit Webster, Chief Financial Officer
512-681-8470

                           INVESTOR GROUP TERMINATES
                        MANAGEMENT BUYOUT NEGOTIATIONS
                                WITH NETPLIANCE

Austin, Texas - January 22, 2001 - Netpliance, Inc. (Nasdaq: NPLI), announced
today the investor group that had delivered a proposal letter to Netpliance's
Board of Directors on December 21, 2000 requesting an opportunity to discuss a
possible management buyout has indicated that it is no longer interested in
pursuing the transaction. To that end, today the investor group delivered a
letter to Netpliance indicating that it was terminating negotiations.

About Netpliance

Netpliance provides infrastructure products and managed services for next
generation premium residential IP voice, video and data applications. Existing
and emerging IP-based broadband service providers including traditional telecom
carriers, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), cable multi-system operators
(MSOs), competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), internet destination sites
or portals, Internet Telephony Service Providers (ITSPs), and application
service providers (ASPs) will be able to rapidly deploy new world services based
on the Netpliance Broadband Service Delivery platform.

Forward-looking Statements

This announcement may contain forward-looking statements that are subject to
significant risks and uncertainties. Although Netpliance believes that the
expectations reflected in its forward looking statements are reasonable,
Netpliance can give no assurance that such expectations or any of their forward
looking statements will prove to be correct, and future results may differ from
those discussed in this press release. Important information regarding the
factors that may affect Netpliance's future performance is included in the
public reports that Netpliance files with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Netpliance disclaims any intention or obligation to revise any
forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future event,
change in expectations, conditions or circumstances, or otherwise. Readers are
cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which
speak only as of the date hereof. The inclusion of any statement in this release
does not constitute an admission by Netpliance or any other person that the
events or circumstances described in such statement are material.

                                 END OF RELEASE
                                      ###
#### Ex parte Ross BURT.

No. 47429.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Sept. 25, 1973.

Melvyn Carson Bruder, Dallas (Court-appointed), Don L. Kraemer, Huntsville, for appellant.

Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ROBERTS, Judge.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding in which the petitioner seeks relief from two convictions for the felony offense of driving while intoxicated. The first, occurring in 1966, resulted in a sentence of five years, probated. In the second conviction, *110which occurred in 1972, petitioner was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. As a result of the later conviction, petitioner’s probation was revoked and the earlier sentence reduced to three years, to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in the 1972 conviction. Both offenses were charged as felonies on the basis of a charge of misdemeanor driving while intoxicated, to which petitioner plead guilty in 1964.

Initially we must determine whether the question raised by this petition is moot, by reason of the fact that petitioner has been released from confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.

In Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed. 29, 917 (1968), the Supreme Court of the United States, in dealing with a similar situation, held that the fact that the petitioner was no longer in custody did not render the case moot. The court observed that a criminal case is moot *.*. only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.” Sibron v. New York, supra, at p. 57, 88 S.Ct. at p. 1900. The court then cited numerous examples of cases involving these collateral legal consequences, including, specifically, the imposition of heavier penalties in subsequent convictions.

We approve of this reasoning, and conclude that the issue is not moot.

The petitioner alleges that the 1964 conviction, upon which the two subsequent felony convictions were based, is void because at that time he was indigent, was not represented by counsel, and had not waived his right to counsel. The evidence is contained in a stipulation to which counsel for both the State and petitioner agreed. The stipulation contains no statement which in any way contradicts petitioner’s assertion that he was improperly convicted of the 1964 offense.

The trial court concluded, on the basis of this stipulation, that the petitioner’s 1964 conviction was void, and that the two subsequent convictions, insofar as they depended on the 1964 conviction, were also void.

The conclusion of the trial judge was correct. See Baldwin v. State, 499 S.W.2d 7 (Tex.Civ.App.1973), citing Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed. 2d 319 (1967); Walker v. State, 486 S.W. 2d 330 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Ramirez v. State, 486 S.W.2d 373 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).

Although petitioner has been released, the writ is granted for the purpose of securing him against further legal consequences arising from the void conviction.

It is so ordered.
Exhibit 31.2

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

I, David J. Kolibachuk, being an officer of U.S.
Bank Trust National Association, the Trustee in respect of the Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, Kinder Morgan Debenture-Backed Series 2002-6 Trust (the Trust), certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the Trust and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports of the Trust filed by
Lehman ABS Corporation in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report of the Trust;
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, the information in those reports, taken as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be provided to the Depositor or the certificateholders by the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or
similar agreement for inclusion in such distribution reports is included in such reports; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement and based on my knowledge, except as
disclosed in such reports, the Trustee has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 1, 2013



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|/s/ David Kolibachuk               
|David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Pieter A Van der Vorst, certify that:
1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sybase, Inc.;
2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;
3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this reportthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting.
Date: August 14, 2003 /s/ PIETER A. VAN DER VORSTPieter A. Van der VorstSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
52
**Exhibit 32**

 

**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 Energroup Technologies Corp.,(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the “Report”), I(We), Stephen R. Fry, President and Director and Thomas J. Howells, Secretary and Director, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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. 

 

 

| *Date:*** | *08/01/06*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/ Stephen R. Fry***                                   |
|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Stephen R. Fry, President and Director***               |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | * *                                                 |
| *Date:*** | *08/01/06*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/Thomas J. Howells***                                 |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Thomas J. Howells, Secretary, Treasurer and Director*** |