alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### North Side St. R’y Co. v. W. A. Tippens.

(No. 3479.)

Appeal from Tarrant County.

Templeton & Carter and S. L. Samuels, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 160. *Street car; negligence in operating; evidence insufficient to prove; case stated.*Appellee hitched his team of two horses attached to a *wagon*to a post on Main street in the city of Fort Worth. Appellant’s electric street car, in passing along said street, frightened said horses, and they broke loose from the post to which appellee had hitched them, and ran away, breaking the wagon, etc. Appellant sued for damages in justice’s court, and recovered judgment for $83, which judgment *227on appeal by appellant to the county court was reduced to $70.50. To entitle appellee to recover damages, it devolved upon him to show by evidence that the injury of which he complained resulted from the negligence of appellant or its employees in operating the street car. We find no evidence of such negligence in this record. The driver of the street car was sounding a gong while the car was moving along the track. The noise was made to warn persons of the approach of the car, and to prevent accidents on the track. It was not a violation of law, or of any ordinance of the city, to sound the gong, nor does it appear that it was sounded unnecessarily or negligently. We conclude, therefore, that the sounding of the gong did not constitute negligence. Appellant had the legal right to operate its street cars upon said street, and could only be liable in damages for the injury caused by the carelessness of those operating them. It was not shown that the driver of the car was aware that appellee’s horses were frightened and would probably break loose and cause injury to appellee’s property unless he ceased to sound the gong. In other words, it was not made to appear by the evidence that, by the use of ordinary care and prudence, the driver of the car could have prevented the injury. It was the duty of the driver to watch the track upon which the car was being propelled, and to avoid collisions and accidents upon the track. He was not required, we think, to keep a lookout for teams not upon or approaching the track. He might well act upon the presumption that teams not upon or approaching the track, but which were standing-on the sides of the street, were securely hitched, or if not so hitched, were not liable to become frightened and run off. [Hargis v. Railway Co., 75 Tex. 23.] Because the evidence fails to show a good cause of action, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

November 1, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.
```
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
```

|                         | DARA      BIOSCIENCES, INC. |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |                        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |   |
| Date:      November 14, 2008 | By:                         | /s/ John      Didsbury                                              |   |
|                         |                        | Name:      John Didsbury                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |   |
|                         |                        | Title: President      and Chief Operating Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |   |
|                         |                        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |   |
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 periodic report of BEA Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Mark P. Dentinger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Date: November 14, 2007



/S/    MARK P.
DENTINGERMark P. DentingerChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                          54,720
<SECURITIES>                                         3
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,296
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     66,750
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,802
<PP&E>                                          22,816
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,189
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,994
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,532
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           106
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,377
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   160,994
<SALES>                                        276,147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               327,425
<CGS>                                          203,534
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  111,868
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 531
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,583
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,373
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,702
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .71
        

</TABLE>
GAME FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                   FORM 10-QSB
                               SEPTEMBER 30, 1997

                 Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            3 MONTHS ENDED                  9 MONTHS ENDED
                                                             SEPTEMBER 30,                   SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                          1997           1996             1997          1996
                                                   -----------------------------   -----------------------------
<S>                                                   <C>            <C>               <C>           <C>      
Primary:
Weighted average shares outstanding                    4,522,522      4,505,309         4,521,266     4,452,991
Net effect of dilutive stock
   options - based on the
   treasury stock method using
   average market price                                  219,688        204,697           186,500       230,131
                                                   -----------------------------   -----------------------------
Totals                                                 4,742,210      4,710,006         4,707,766     4,683,122

Net Income                                            $  830,078     $  518,747       $ 1,843,406   $ 1,161,435
                                                   -----------------------------   -----------------------------
Net Income Per Share                                      $ 0.17         $ 0.11            $ 0.39        $ 0.25
                                                   =============================   =============================


Fully Diluted:
Weighted average shares outstanding                    4,522,522      4,505,309         4,521,266     4,452,991
Net effect of dilutive stock
   options - based on the
   treasury stock method using
   the higher of the average
   or the closing price                                  223,403        204,697           192,307       230,131
                                                   -----------------------------   -----------------------------
Totals                                                 4,745,925      4,710,006         4,713,573     4,683,122

Net Income                                            $  830,078     $  518,747       $ 1,843,406   $ 1,161,435
                                                   -----------------------------   -----------------------------
Net Income Per Share                                      $ 0.17         $ 0.11            $ 0.39        $ 0.25
                                                   =============================   =============================
</TABLE>

All shares outstanding have been restated to give effect to the 5-for-4 stock
splits declared during September 1995 and June 1996.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             MEDICARE CUTS MEAN A WINDFALL FOR THE WEALTHY

  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage with the 
Republican proposal to force the Nation's seniors to pay for their tax 
cut for the rich. The Republican budget proposal would force our 
seniors to pay more than $1,000 out of pocket for medical care each 
year, while giving the very wealthiest 1 percent of Americans an annual 
windfall of $20,000.
  It is outrageous that at a time when our Nation's seniors are 
struggling to make ends meet the Republicans have chosen to make their 
medical care more expensive. We must not force our seniors to pick up 
the tab for a huge tax break for the very wealthiest Americans. The 
Republicans claim that they must cut Medicare because they project that 
the system will be out of money in 7 years. But even if you accept 
their figures, and I certainly do not, most of the $286 billion the 
Republicans would cut from Medicare and take from our senior citizens 
would be used to pay for their tax cuts. A windfall for the very 
wealthy, not to save the future of Medicare for seniors.
  For shame.

                          ____________________
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23854]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Initial, Review Group, Neurological Sciences and 
Disorders A.
    Date: November 3, 2010.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Embassy Suites Hotel, 4300 Military Road, Washington, DC 
20015.
    Contact Person: Richard D. Crosland, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, 6001 Executive 
Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-9223.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS).

    Dated: September 16, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-23854 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 30, 2020

Order 

Clerk

July 30, 2020

159384(53)(55)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 159384

v COA: 342953

Muskegon CC: 17-000174-FC

DANIEL RAY BEAN,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellant to extend the time 

for filing its brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief submitted on July 27, 2020, is 

accepted as timely filed. The motion of defendant-appellee to dismiss the appeal due to 

plaintiff-appellant’s failure to timely file its brief is DENIED.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Christopher BROWDER.

No. 2010-KK-2247.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Browder, Christopher; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 454-863; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0887.

Denied.
#### G B & SONS, INC., Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, and Adolfo Sanchez, Appellees.

No. 1D11-3409.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 28, 2011.

Gordon C. Watt, Coral Gables, for Appellant.

A. Robert Whaley, General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *Durando v. Palm Beach County,*719 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

WOLF, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
News United States Air Force
 Latest Airman magazine now availablePublished Aug. 4, 2015
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                The August issue of Airman magazine is now available to download or view with our new web content viewer.• PC/Mac version

You can download Airman magazine’s August issue for your tablet here:
• Apple version
• Android version
In the cover story, titled “The Path,” you’ll meet Lt. Col. Allison Black, the commander of the 319th Special Operations Squadron at Hurlburt Field, Florida. As a lieutenant, she was the navigator on an AC-130H Gunship in Afghanistan in the months after 9/11. Today, Black continues to inspire other female Airmen to blaze their own path.
In the next feature, called “Together,” read how the Air Force is working with the Royal Netherlands air force to train Dutch F-16 Fighting Falcon pilots in Tucson, Arizona.
Lastly, in “Aim High,” you’ll learn about Airmen marksmen who competed against shooters from other services at the 56th Annual Interservice Pistol Championships at Fort Benning, Georgia.
For more stories, visit Airman Online, the website for the official magazine of the U.S. Air Force.feature stories 



Airman magazine
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              ADJOURNMENT

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 51 minutes 
p.m.), the House adjourned until Thursday, May 25, 1995, at 10 a.m.

                          ____________________
```
#### J. D. Conwell et al. v. J. C. Hartsell.

(No. 6250.)

Appeal from Lamar County.

T. S. Hill and Park & Ounby, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 73. *Judgment; conclusiveness of in collateral proceeding; charge of court.*Appellant Conwell sued one Tucker for the rent of a gin, and sued out a distress warrant, which was levied upon a lot of hay which had been stored by Tucker in said gin. Said hay was sold *114under said distress warrant. Appellee, Hartsell, brought this suit against Oonwell, and also against Sheriff G-unu and the sureties upon his official bond, to recover $461.25 actual damages and $250 exemplary damages, for the seizure and conversion of said hay, alleging -that he was the owner of about fourteen hundred bales of the said hay at the time of said seizure. He recovered judgment against all the defendants for $352.71 and costs. Among other instructions given by the court to the jury was the following: “ If you believe from the evidence that Tucker did not owe Oonwell any rents at the time of the levy, and you find that plaintiff was the owner of the property at the time, then you will find for the plaintiff,” etc. This portion of the charge is assigned as error, and we hold that it is error. That Tucker wTas indebted to Oonwell for rent was conclusively shown by the judgment of the justice’s court, read in evidence. Appellee did not allege nor attempt to prove that said judgment was void for fraud or other reason. It wras not competent for appellee to question the judgment of the justice’s court in this collateral proceeding, except upon some ground which would render said judgment void. [1 Oivil Cas. Ct. App., § 1314; 2 Civil Gas. Ct. App., § 695.] Instead of giving said paragraph of the charge the court should have given the special charge requested by appellant’s counsel, to the effect that the judgment of the justice’s court was conclusive evidence that at the time of the levy of the distress warrant upon the hay Tucker wTas indebted to Oonwell for rent in the sum of $80. We are also of opinion that the special instruction requested by appellants, presenting the law of estoppel, should have been given. It was applicable to and demanded by the evidence. We are further of opinion that the verdict of the jury is not supported .by the evidence, and is excessive.

April 16, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 32

Certification Furnished 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 on Form 10-K of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:



| |  |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for
the period covered by the Report.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    KERRY J.
CHAUVINKerry J. ChauvinChief Executive OfficerMarch 4, 2010By:

/s/    ROBIN A.
SEIBERTRobin A. SeibertChief Financial OfficerMarch 4, 2010


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. and will be retained by Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.