alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stanfield *v.*Dover.

Hill, J.

1. Judgment was obtained in a justice’s court in favor of J. E. Stanfield against John A. Dover and Julia Dover, for $70 principal, and $16.71 interest. Ei. fa. was levied upon certain described land occupied by John and Julia Dover, as the property of Julia Dover. Julia Dover filed a claim for herself as beneficiary under a certain homestead exemption, and for her three minor children as beneficiaries of the homestead property, alleging that the debt of J. E. Stanfield did not fall within any one of the classes of cases for which the homestead was bound under the constitution of the State, and that the property was not subject to levy and sale, etc. On the trial the plaintiff in fi. fa. moved that the court direct a verdict in his favor, on the ground that the law had not been complied with in procuring the homestead. The court overruled this motion, and the plaintiff excepted. *Held:*

1. The court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in fi. fa. *Hattaway*v. *Dickens,*163 *Ga.*755 (4) (137 S. E. 57).

*224No. 6366.

April 12, 1928.

Claim. Before Judge Maddox. Walker superior court. November 10, 1927.

*Rosser & Shaw,*for plaintiff. *D. F. Pope,*for defendant.

2. The court directed a verdict that the levy be dismissed and the property be held not subject to the fi. fa. The plaintiff in fi. fa. alleges that it was error to overrule his motion and to sustain the motion of the claimant, and “now assigns the same as error. Plaintiff then excepted, and now excepts to said ruling, judgment, and direction of the verdict.” *Held,*that the latter exception is insufficient to raise any question for decision by this court; and therefore the judgment of the court below will be affirmed. *Eubanks*v. *Griffin Investment Co.,*162 *Ga.*717 (134 S. E. 760). *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Alphonsia CANTY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-3222.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Alphonsia Canty, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition seeking a belated appeal of the order rendered April 16, 2009, denying petitioner’s motion for correction of sentence(s) in Duval County Circuit Court case number 16-1983-3297-AXXX, is granted. Upon issuance of mandate in this cause, a copy of this opinion shall be furnished to the clerk of the lower tribunal for treatment as a notice of appeal in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(5)(D).

PADOVANO, ROBERTS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Benjamin C. WHITE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-1028.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re White, Benjamin C.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 47,628; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,-530-KH.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), James M. Gower, Chief Executive Officer of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company"), and Ryan D. Maynard, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

In
Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of March 7, 2008.

|/s/JAMES M. GOWERJames M. Gower Chief Executive
Officer |  |  | /s/RYAN D. MAYNARDRyan D. Maynard Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
|------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This
certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date
of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

132320 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver (17) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132320 COA: 272849 Wayne CC: 83-008071-01 RAYMOND LANE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court's January 4, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

l0319 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.

March 26, 2007

Clerk
The Board of DirectorsPSS
World Medical, Inc.

|Re: | Registration
Statement File Nos. 33-80657, 33-90464, 333-15043, 333-64185, 33-85004, 33-97756,
33-99046,          33-97754, 333-30427, 333-50526, and 333-58272 on Form S-8
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect to the subject
registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report
dated November 7, 2003 related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considered part of a registration
statement prepared or certified by an accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

KPMG LLP

Jacksonville, Florida
November 7, 2003
Exhibit 32.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of Hamptons Luxury Homes, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roy Dalene, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify 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.





Date: March  29, 2006       /s/ Roy Dalene

Roy Dalene

Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3977
<ALLOWANCES>                                       340
<INVENTORY>                                      34419
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 41690
<PP&E>                                           10685
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   51337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            21131
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                        8646
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     51337
<SALES>                                          17467
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 17467
<CGS>                                            19057
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    19057
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4350
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 441
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6381)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6381)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6381)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.55)


</TABLE>
#### Granneman, Appellant, *v.*Cincinnati Street Ry. Co., Appellee.

(Decided June 9, 1941.)

*537
      *Messrs. Ginocchio & Ginocchio,*for appellant.

*Mr. John M. McCaslin,*for appellee.

By the Court.

This appeal is attempted by the plaintiff from an order of the Common Pleas Court which ‘ ‘ overruled his motion for judgment on the verdict of the jury * * * and granted appellee’s motion for a new trial.”

The question is whether the court has any jurisdiction to review this order.

It is conceded that *Hoffman*v. *Knollman,*135 Ohio St., 170, 20 N. E. (2d), 221, decides that an order granting a motion for a new trial is not a final order and, therefore, not appealable unless it clearly appears that the trial court has abused its discretion in granting such order. And *Steiner*v. *Custer,*137 Ohio St., 448, 31 N. E. (2d), 855, decides that: “The meaning of the term ‘abuse of discretion’ * * * connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable attitude on the part of the court.”

In the case at bar, the court granted the new trial because it reached the conclusion that a special charge given to the jury at the plaintiff’s request was erroneous. That, at most, was an error of law. It does not imply an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable attitude. It is not claimed that it does.

But it is said that, because defendant’s motion for a new trial and plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the general verdict were disposed of simultaneously, the action of the court is given finality that it would not otherwise possess, and that such finality exists without it appearing that the court was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.

*538It is true that the plaintiff expressly asked by his motion that judgment be entered in his favor on the verdict, and that this was denied by the overruling of the motion. But it was not necessary that such a motion be filed. Section 11599, General Code, governs. If no motion for a new trial is filed, it is the duty of the clerk to enter the judgment immediately after the expiration of three days. If a motion is filed, the judgment is not entered until the motion is overruled when it is immediately entered.

The sustaining of the motion for a new trial is not an appealable order, unless there is present an abuse of discretion. Sustaining the motion for a new trial necessarily imports a refusal to enter judgment on the verdict. The one is the counterpart of the other and the rule that the one is not appealable in the absence of an abuse of discretion is equally applicable to the other.

For these reasons, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Matthews, P. J., Ross and Hamilton, JJ., concur.
#### Robert Wayne BARNETT, Sr. v. AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION HOIST, INC.

No. 2010-CC-2761.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 2011.

In re American Construction Hoist, Inc.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge,. 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 579018; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 1529.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Loyal WHITE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0288.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Loyal White; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 347-724; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0114.

Denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Quarterly Report of MakeMusic, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB forthe three months ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), I, John W. Paulson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: August 3, 2007                                                                 /s/ John W. Paulson   John W. Paulson, Chief Executive Officer
(LOGO) KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

2500 Ruan Center
P.O. Box 772
Des Moines, IA 50303


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

The Board of Directors
Norwest Mortgage, Inc.:

We  have  examined  management's  assertion  about  Norwest  Mortgage  Banking's
compliance  with the  minimum  servicing  standards  set  forth in the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE
BANKERS (USAP) as of and for the year ended  December 31, 1997,  included in the
accompanying  Management  Assertion.   Management  is  responsible  for  Norwest
Mortgage  Banking's  compliance  with those  minimum  servicing  standards.  Our
responsibility,  is to express an opinion on  management's  assertion  about the
entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about Norwest Mortgage Banking's compliance
with the minimum servicing  standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination on Norwest Mortgage  Banking's  compliance with the minimum
servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Norwest Mortgage Banking complied in
all material respects with the aforementioned  minimum servicing standards as of
and for the year ended  December  31,  1997 is fairly  stated,  in all  material
respects.

                                           /s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

January 14, 1998
#### Gary LAMBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D08-2884.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 20, 2011.

Philip J. Massa, Regional Counsel, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s ruling on his claims for postconviction relief and the amended sentencing order. We affirm, but remand for the entry of a corrected order of revocation that reflects a violation of only condition 5. *See, e.g., Ortiz v. State,*2 So.3d 318, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (recognizing that written order of revocation must conform to trial court’s oral pronouncement).

*Affirmed and Remanded.*

STEVENSON, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
#### Betty CASBORN, Wife of/and Adam Casborn v. William CURRAN, M.D. and Northshore Regional Medical Center.

No. 2010-C-2727.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 2011.

In re Casborn et al., Betty; Casborn, Adam; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St, Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 2008-13138; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 1914.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRITY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             792
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         257,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,690
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 268,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         30
<COMMON>                                           162
<OTHER-SE>                                     268,686
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   268,878
<SALES>                                         10,328
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,406
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 977
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,379
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,379
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,889
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 17, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 17, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0058. TONYA TAPLEY SASSER v. MICHAEL BRACK BARNES.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2014CV341 2015CV21 2015CV26
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2260

___________ David E. Proctor, * * Appellant, *

* v. * * Appeal from the United States Men's Wearhouse, Inc.; Kathleen T. * District Court for the Eastern Sullivan; Fred Singler; Carol * District of Missouri. Souvenier; Charlie Bresler; George * Zimmer; Terry Manuel; Julie Aguirre; * [UNPUBLISHED] Warren Randall; Steve Ambroz; * William Follas; Richard Rea; Galina * Michoulovina, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 26, 2001 Filed: July 27, 2001

___________ BeforeMORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. DavidE. Proctor appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment discrimination action. After a review of the record and the parties'-2-

briefs, we conclude the judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 14, 2010.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia**                     (Michael E. Collins, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521:                

*1. The George W. Connell Revocable Trust*, Radnor, Pennsylvania; to acquire voting shares of Drexel Morgan & Co., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of The Haverford Trust Company, both of Radnor, Pennsylvania.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 24, 2010.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-24401 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                   14,397
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            24,624
<ALLOWANCES>                                484
<INVENTORY>                             133,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        178,262
<PP&E>                                  109,825
<DEPRECIATION>                           24,940
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          269,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    29,922
<BONDS>                                  60,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                 18,359
<OTHER-SE>                              127,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            269,014
<SALES>                                  73,108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         73,108
<CGS>                                    40,336
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            72,397
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             495
<INCOME-TAX>                                191
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         304
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                304
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.02
        


</TABLE>