alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### A. J. Roe v. P. G. Holbert.

(No. 3387.)

Appeal from Dallas County. '

Morgan & Freeman and McDonald & Stone, counsel for appellant.

McCormick & Spence and E. M. Browder, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Davidson, J.

§ 293. *Pleading; amendment of on appeal to county court held not to set up new cause of action.*This suit was instituted by appellant in the justice’s court upon an open account for rent. Appellant at the same time sued out a distress warrant, and filed the necessary affidavit and bond. In that court appellee pleaded an offset to the account. On the trial in said court, appellee recovered a judgment, and from’ this judgment appellant prosecuted this appeal to the county court. In the latter court appellant filed his amended petition, setting up the fact that a promissory note had been given by appellee in liquidation of the said account; that said note had been lost after maturity, while he was the legal owner and holder thereof; that the balance due on said note was $125; and that it was given for the same debt as that stated in the account upon which this suit was originally based. This amendment was promptly excepted to by appellant, which exception was sustained by the court, and the pleading stricken out. The appellant declined to further amend. Judgment was rendered in favor of appellee for his costs, and from this judgment this appeal is prosecuted. The exception was based upon the ground that the amended pleading set up a new cause of action in the county court.

We are of opinion that the court erred in sustaining the exception. The amendment did not set up a new *507cause of action from that originally sued upon. It was the same debt, the same transaction, the same cause of action, and for the same amount. Blum v. Mays, White & W. Civil Cas., § 475, is a case directly in point. For the error indicated the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

February 13, 1892.

Eeversed and remanded.
#### STATE ex rel. Leotis THOMAS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0130.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Thomas, Leotis; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 248,904; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 43,-783-KA.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Robert COLE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2845.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Cole, Robert; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 160,826; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,170-KH.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of OmniComm Systems,
Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, being, Cornelis F. Wit, Chief Executive Officer 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Cornelis F. Wit                            
|Cornelis F. Wit                                
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director



March 31, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000920231
<NAME> TRANSACTION NETWORK SERVICES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          10,271
<SECURITIES>                                    22,129
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                       650
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,267
<PP&E>                                          32,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,406
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,499
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           124
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,142
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,539
<SALES>                                         45,729
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,729
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,562
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,387
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,163
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,296
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,780
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,867
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.39
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 15.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File No.333-13802) and Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-06850, 333-11384, 333-12326,333-13224, 333-13330, 333-13494, 333-105348, 333-108869 and 333-137364) pertaining to the ExecutiveShare Option Scheme, the 1997 Share Option Scheme, as amended, the 1997 Director Share OptionScheme and the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of IONA Technologies PLC, the 2006 Share IncentivePlan, the 1997 Stock Plan of Genesis Development Corporation, the Stock Option Plan ofObject-Oriented Concepts, Inc. and the 1999 Stock Option Plan of Netfish Technologies, Inc., of ourreport dated April 27, 2007, with respect to the Consolidated Financial Statements of IONATechnologies PLC included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2006./s/ Ernst& YoungErnst & Young
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: July 1Published July 1, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)**-- In this look around the Air Force, Gen. David Goldfein is confirmed to be the next Air Force chief of staff; the Air Force Personnel Center is accepting pilot applications; and five more bases have been nominated to potentially have KC-46A Pegasus tankers.
For previous episodes, click here for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- AF accepting applications for undergraduate flying training
- Air Force announces KC-46A candidate bases
- Senate confirms Goldfein as next AF chief of staffDavid L. Goldfein 



CSAF 



AFPC 



pilot 



KC-46A 



ATAF
#### STATE ex rel. Tony Joseph TABOR v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0283.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Tabor, Tony Joseph; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 447,948; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 KA 0058.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATION OF UNIFIED FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., PREVIOUSLY
FILED BY THE COMPANY WITH THE COMMISSION, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FILING.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         542,981
<SECURITIES>                                 1,178,733
<RECEIVABLES>                                  885,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,041
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,819,439
<PP&E>                                       1,474,449
<DEPRECIATION>                                 938,650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,795,117
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          994,207
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         9,050
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     17,069
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,795,117
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,590,690
<CGS>                                          469,072
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  469,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,172,789
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,317
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (70,863)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (70,863)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (70,863)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.10)


</TABLE>
#### M. A. Munroe and wife v. L. Schwartz.

(No. 6470.)

Appeal from Uvalde County.

Eugene Archer, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellee

Opinion by

White, P. J.

*160May 7, 1890.

§104. *Jurisdiction of county court;*“ *amount in controversy;*” *value of property where foreclosure of lien on is sought, is.*This was a suit brought by Schwartz against M. A. Munroe and wife in the county court to recover the amounts due upon three several promissory notes aggregating an amount over $500, and also to foreclose two chattel mortgages on two lots of sheep aggregating over two thousand three hundred head. He also sued out a writ of sequestration to sequestrate the sheep included in both mortgages, and one thousand and fifty-eight were seized by the officer under said writ, but were replevied by the defendants, who were required to execute a replevin bond in the sum of $2,116. In his affidavit for the writ of sequestration the plaintiff swears that the two thousand three hundred head of sheep are worth fifty cents per head, which would make their aggregaté value $1,150. This latter sum is beyond the jurisdiction of the county court. “The matter in controversy was not only the debt, but the security given for its payment. The litigation comprehended as well the subject-matter of the mortgage as the debt.” [Marshall v. Taylor, 7 Tex. 235; Lane v. Howard, 22 Tex. 7.] The amount in controversy being more than $1,000, the county court had no jurisdiction to try the case. We have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the rights of the parties on appeal under the circumstances, but have the right to reverse and remand the case for disposition in the county court, which is done.

Reversed and remanded.
#### STATE of Louisiana In the Interest of B.M. and P.M.

No. 2011-CJ-0656.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 25, 2011.

In re Johnson, Jacqueline; Johnson, Ronnie; —Other(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. I, No. J-11906; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0288.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.
Exhibit 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT

OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

AND THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER)

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of Noble International Ltd. (the
Company), hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 29, 2008



By:

/s/    THOMAS L.
SAELIName:

Thomas L. SaeliTitle:

Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of Noble International, Ltd.By:

/s/    DAVID J.
FALLONName:

David J. FallonTitle:

Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of Noble International, Ltd.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4502

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL BELSER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District

Judge. (CR-04-197)

Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 18, 2006

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,

Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, L.

Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Kearns Davis,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Belser was found guilty of possession with intent

to distribute forty-one grams of cocaine base (“crack”) (Count 1),

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count 2), and

possession of firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime

(Count 3). Taking into account the Supreme Court’s decision in

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and the factors in 18

U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), the court sentenced

Belser under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines to a total sentence

of 248 months of imprisonment: 188 months for Count 1, 120 months

concurrently on Count 2, and five years (sixty months) to run

consecutively for Count 3. On appeal, Belser’s counsel alleges

there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Count

3. In his pro se supplemental brief, Belser alleges that his

sentence for Count 1 violates Booker. For the reasons that follow,

we affirm.

First, viewing the evidence as required, Glasser v.

United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942), any rational trier of fact

could have found the essential elements of Belser’s conviction for

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime

beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849,

862-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (stating standard). Accordingly, this claim

fails.
- 3 -

Second, we do not find the district court’s sentence

relying on Booker and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) was unreasonable.

Booker, 543 U.S. at 261; United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,

546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). “[A] sentence imposed within the properly

calculated Guidelines range . . . is presumptively reasonable.”

United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, this claim

fails.

Accordingly, we affirm Belser’s convictions and

sentences. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Jonathon GUILLORY v. PROGRESSIVE SECURITY INS. CO., et al.

No. 2010-C-2419.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re American Home Assurance Co.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2006-1743; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. CA 09-1508, CA 09-1056.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 10.2

                       AGREEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT OF
                  PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF ASSETS

                                ADDENDUM

This Agreement made as of the 20th day of April 1998, between Baja Pro
Racing Series, S.A. de C.V., ("BPRS"), a Mexican Corporation and NetRom,
Inc., ("NI"), a California Corporation is hereby agreed as follows:

WHEREAS, "BPRS" is purchasing from Tri-National Development Corp.,("TND"),
upon certain terms and subject to certain conditions as stated in their
April 29th, 1997 Agreement, the properties of "TND" described therein and
whereas Rene Ruelas as President of "BPRS" desires the right to assign the
said agreement to ("NI")  and ("NI") is willing to accept said assignment,
subject to the same mutual covenants, agreements, representations and
warranties contained in that Agreement, the parties agree as follows;

          Rene Ruelas will assign the April 29th, 1997 agreement to
          ("NI") subject to the approval of "TND". The assignee,
          ("NI") is a corporation duly organized, validly existing,
          and in good standing under the laws of the State of
          California and has all necessary corporate powers to own and
          sell its properties and carry on its business as now owned
          and operated by it and is in good standing in California.
          Additionally, the assignee will execute new agreements with
          ("TND") as presented and will pay  $1.00 as full
          consideration for this assignment. ("BPRS") hereby accepts
          the $1.00 as full consideration for its interests in the
          April 29, 1997 agreement and both parties heretofore will
          hold each other harmless relative to this agreement.

     This assignment to take affect upon the signing by all parties
     identified below by no later than April 28, 1998. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 
     the parties to this Agreement have duly executed it on the day and
     year first above written.

"BPRS"  Att: Mr. Rene Ruelas, President _________________________________

        Baja Pro Racing Series, S.A. de C.V.
        Calle Delante #302
        Bahai de Ensenada
        Ensenada, Baja, California, Mexico 22890

"NI"    Att: Thomas Carter, President   ________________________________ 

        NetRom, Inc.
        960 Grand Ave.
        San Diego, California 92109

<PAGE>

The assignment is hereby approved on behalf of Tri-National Development
Corp.

"TND" Att: Mr. Michael Sunstein. President _______________________________

        Tri-National Development Corp.
        480 Camino del Rio South #140
        San Diego, California 92108
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
  
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 15, 2008 (the Report), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; 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 periods presented therein.
  /s/ ANDREW HAMER

Andrew HamerVice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                               ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

      As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report dated January 16, 2002 included in this Form 10-K, into the
Company's previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement File Numbers
333-52130, 333-75352 and 333-75354.

                             /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Lancaster, Pa.,
March 27, 2002


























Note: This represents a copy of the letter of consent by Arthur Andersen LLP
that was included as Exhibit 22.1 to Waypoint Financial Corp.'s annual report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 and does not represent a
reissuance of the letter of consent. After reasonable efforts, Waypoint
Financial Corp. has not been able to obtain a reissued letter of consent from
Arthur Andersen LLP.
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Curtis W. Stoelting, certify that:





1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of RC2 Corporation; and





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








Date:  March 10, 2011


By: /s/ Curtis W. Stoelting


Curtis W. Stoelting


Chief Executive Officer