alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS                 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-1997          
<PERIOD-START>                                OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         1
<CASH>                                            185,938 
<SECURITIES>                                            0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                      12,936 
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0 
<INVENTORY>                                       141,000 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  433,330 
<PP&E>                                             13,183 
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    648,406 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             417,370 
<BONDS>                                                 0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0 
<PREFERRED>                                             0 
<COMMON>                                            5,445 
<OTHER-SE>                                        415,085 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      648,406 
<SALES>                                            56,678 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   56,678 
<CGS>                                              43,090 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      43,090 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  614,093 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   708,032 
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               708,032 
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0 
<CHANGES>                                               0 
<NET-INCOME>                                      708,032 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.15)
                                               

</TABLE>
NO ME MOS F IL E D T OD AY .
#### T. M. Williams v. Leon & H. Blum.

*(No.*3174.)

Appeal from Milam County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

*(Transferred from Austin. J*

§ 501. *Sale of personal property; complete when; contract construed.*Williams brought this suit to recover for seventy-one and one-half tons of cotton seed at $3.50 per ton, being the amount he had paid appellees in excess of the amount that he received from them, under the following written contract, to wit:

> “Cameron, Texas, February 14, 1883.

> “ This witnesseth, that we have this day sold to Mr. T. M. Williams all the cotton seed contained in twenty pens at Brady’s gin, and in a crib at Brady’s residence, in Maysfield. We warrant that there are one hundred and *448fifty tons in said pens and crib; should they fall short, we are to refund the amount paid on them in excess of what they turn out. We also warrant them as sound, merchantable seed, or he need not take such as prove to be otherwise. Should they exceed one hundred and fifty tons, he is to take them and pay us at the rate of $3.50 per ton for excess, the same as the above are sold for; and he is to weigh the seed at Cameron and keep an accurate account of the weight, giving A. E. Brady one statement and us another. He is to proceed and haul them away as soon as practicable.

December 10, 1884.

> (Signed) “Leon & H. Blum,

> “Per A. H. Hutchins.”

Williams at once took possession of the cotton seed, and hauled away seventy-eight and one-half tons thereof, when the remainder were destroyed by fire. The trial judge construed the contract to be a complete sale of the cotton seed, and charged the jury that if they believed from the evidence that there were one hundred and fifty tons of good, sound, merchantable cotton seed in said pens and crib at said time, they should find for the defendauts, and the jury did so find. In this there was no error. The contract evidences a complete sale of the cotton seed, and the title in said seed thereby vested instantly and perfectly in Williams, he receiving possession of the seed at the time. It is well settled that where possession of the goods is given to the buyer, and the act necessary to the designation' of the articles sold is to be performed by him, and not by the seller, title to the goods passes absolutely to the buyer. [Wells v. Littlefield, 59 Tex. 556. J Here, no act remained to be done by the sellers. Whatever was to be done, devolved upon the buyer.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                 Exhibit 21.1

                             List of Subsidiaries


Zaring National Corporation
Ohio Corporation

Zaring Holdings, Inc.
Ohio Corporation

Zaring Homes, Inc.
Ohio Corporation

Zaring Homes Kentucky, LLC
Kentucky LLC

Zaring Homes Indiana, LLC
Indiana LLC

Blue Chip Mortgage
Ohio LLC

Hearthside Homes, LLC
Indiana LLC

Legacy Mortgage Corporation
(dba Hearthside Home Mortgage)
Indiana Corporation

Centron Financial Services Corp.
North Carolina Corporation

HomeMax, Inc.
Delaware Corporation

HM Services, Inc.
Delaware Corporation


HM Properties, Inc.
Delaware Corporation

HomeMax Tennessee, Inc.
Tennessee Corporation

HomeMax South Carolina, Inc.
South Carolina Corporation

HomeMax Ohio, Inc.
Ohio Corporation

HomeMax Indiana, LLC
Indiana LLC

HomeMax Kentucky, LLC
Kentucky LLC

HomeMax North Carolina, Inc.
North Carolina Corporation
#### Yaakov VANN, Appellant, v. Lee GREENBERG, Appellee.

No. 4D09-4214.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 19, 2011.

Rehearing Denied March 1, 2011.

Yaakov Vann, Boca Raton, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee,*377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979).

GROSS, C. J., MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
#### Fort Worth & Denver City R’y Co. v. J. M. Scott.

(No. 2666.)

Appeal from Tarrant County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

-§ 110. *Surface ivater; injury by, when a cause of action.*If, by reason of the construction of a railroad bed and ditches, surface water be diverted from its usual and ordinary course, and by means of embankments and ditches is conveyed to any particular place, and thereby overflows land which, before the construction of the road, did not overflow, the company will be liable to the land owner for such injury. This rule applies as well where the company has the right of way over the land as where it is a trespasser or possessor without right. [R’y Co. v. Donahoo, 59 Tex. 128.]

§ 111. *Same; when not a cause of action.*In the case of the flow of mere surface water, where there were ne channels through which it usually passed off, damages occasioned by its obstruction would not be recoverable. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 417.]

§ 112. *Nuisance; when liability for, exists.*If the act of the defendant contributes essentially to the creation of the nuisance, as by the erection of a dam which renders-the water stagnant, or produces its overflow, so as to-cause it to gather in pools or eddies and become stagnant, or by raising it, so as to cause the decay of vegetable-matter upon its banks, whereby unwholesome gases are developed, he is liable, even though natural causes combine with his act to produce the result. [Wood on Nuisance, § 820.]

§ 113. *Charge of the court as to measure of damage.*The *market*value of property destroyed or injured, in *138an action to recover damages for such destruction or injury, is the proper measure of damages; and the charge of the court should so instruct the jury. In this case, while the charge of the court in this respect was objectionable, it was held error for which the judgment would not be reversed, because, under the evidence in the case, it was immaterial. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 250; R. R. Co. v. Knapp, 51 Tex. 592.]

April 16, 1884.

§ 144. *Damage to growing crops is damage to the land.*Damage to a crop growing upon land is damage to the land, and it is proper, in estimating damage done to land, to take into consideration the damage done to the crops growing thereon. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 232.]

§ 145. *Not error to refuse charge requested, when.*Where the charge of the court is full and fair upon all the issues, it is not error to refuse additional instructions. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 1133.]

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT
32.1

|Certification
ofCentral Coast BancorpPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Regarding Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2004



Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Central Coast Bancorp, a California corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify that:


1. The
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004
(the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.
Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|       |  |               
|------ |  | --------------
|Dated: |  | April 26, 2004
|       |  |               
|       |  |               
|      
|Dated: |  | April 26, 2004
|       |  |               
|       |  |               
|       |  |               

|A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Central Coast Bancorp and will be retained by Central Coast Bancorp
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1505 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1505

  To designate the Federal building located at 131 East 4th Street in 
      Davenport, Iowa, as the ``James A. Leach Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2007

   Mr. Loebsack (for himself and Mr. Braley of Iowa) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the Federal building located at 131 East 4th Street in 
      Davenport, Iowa, as the ``James A. Leach Federal Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 131 East 4th Street in Davenport, 
Iowa, shall be known and designated as the ``James A. Leach Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James A. Leach 
Federal Building''.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00184-CR

MICAELA RAMOS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1337652D

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered “Appellant’s Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” The motion 

complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this 

motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: September 24, 2015
EXHIBIT
32.1

|Certification
ofCentral Coast BancorpPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Regarding Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2004



Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Central Coast Bancorp, a California corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify that:


1. The
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004
(the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.
Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|       |  |              
|------ |  | -------------
|Dated: |  | July 20, 2004
|       |  |              
|       |  |              
|      
|Dated: |  | July 20, 2004
|       |  |              
|       |  |              
|       |  |              

|A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Central Coast Bancorp and will be retained by Central Coast Bancorp
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1471 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit eligible veterans to receive 

direct access to chiropractic care. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2007 

Mr. FILNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit eligible 

veterans to receive direct access to chiropractic care. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better Access to Chiro5 practors to Keep our Veterans Healthy Act (BACK Vet6 erans Health Act)’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1471 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDED CHIROPRACTOR SERVICES AVAILABLE 

2 TO VETERANS. 

3 (a) MEDICAL SERVICES.—Paragraph (6) of section 

4 1701 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by add5 ing at the end the following new subparagraph: 

6 ‘‘(G) Chiropractic services.’’. 

7 (b) REHABILITATIVE SERVICES.—Paragraph (8) of 

8 such section is amended by inserting ‘‘chiropractic,’’ after 

9 ‘‘counseling,’’. 

10 (c) PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.—Paragraph 

11 (9) of such section is amended — 

12 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) 

13 through (K) as subparagraphs (G) through (L), re14 spectively; and 

15 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the fol16 lowing new subparagraph (F): 

17 ‘‘(F) periodic and preventative chiropractic ex18 aminations and services;’’. 

19 SEC. 3. DIRECT ACCESS FOR VETERANS TO CHIROPRACTIC 

20 SERVICES. 

21 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 17 of title 38, is amended 

22 by inserting after section 1710B the following new section: 

23 ‘‘§ 1710C. Direct access to chiropractic services 

24 ‘‘(a) The Secretary shall permit eligible veterans to 

25 receive needed medical services, rehabilitative services, and 

26 preventative health services from a licensed doctor of 


bajohnson on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1471 IH

1 chiropractic on a direct access basis at the election of the 

2 eligible veteran, if such services are within the State scope 

3 of practice of such doctor of chiropractic. 

4 ‘‘(b) The Secretary shall not discriminate among li5 censed health-care providers in the determination of need6 ed services.’’. 

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

8 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 

9 after the item relating to section 1710B the following new 

10 item: 

‘‘1710C. Direct access to chiropractic services.’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 THC IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-60855 Summary Calendar
PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, VERSUS JANET LOUISE MORGAN, ET AL., Defendants, JANET LOUISE MORGAN, Defendant-Appellee,

VERSUS JANE CLELAND COOK; ESTATE OF CARROLL LEE COOK, By and Through Susan MacKenzie, Executrix (pursuant to Amended Complaint filed 1/22/97, Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

(2:97-CV-8-B-B) October 30, 1998 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM * :2

The judgment is AFFIRMED for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in his order dated November 3, 1997.
#### John N. Link, County Judge, etc., v. R. K. Murphy et al.

(No. 1533.)

Appeal from Anderson County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 13. *Limitation; action on bond to recover hire of county convict, barred when.*Suit on bond to recover hire of a county convict. [R. S. articles 1876, 3604.] Under the provisions of the bond, the last payment became due on the 18th of May, 1878, and more than four years had elapsed from that date before the institution of this suit. Defendants pleaded the statute of limitation of four years, which was sustained and the suit was dismissed. *Held,*that in actions-like this, the maxim *nullum tempus occurrit regi*does' not apply in favor of a county, and that this suit was barred by the statute of *22limitation of four years. The case of Coleman v. Thurmond, 56 Tex. 514, is cited, and distinguished from the case at bar. [Galveston v. Menard, 23 Tex. 408; 10 Barb. 155; Angell on Highways, § 324; Armstrong v. Dalton, 4 Dev. (N. C.) 568; 8 Ohio, 258; 9 Shep. (Me.) 445; 2 Dillon Munic. Corp. §§ 637-668.]

October 13, 1883.

Affirmed.
#### J. A. Carr v. King & Fordtran.

(No. 1700.)

Appeal from Galveston County.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 557. *Petition, which warranted judgment for debt and stipulated attorney’s fee.*Appellees sued appellant upon a promissory note, alleging as follows: “That he render unto them the sum of $505.25 which to them he owes, and unjustly detains, for this, to wit, that heretofore, to wit, on the 20th day of June, 1884, the said defendant made and signed, and then delivered to the said plaintiffs, his certain note in writing, commonly called a promissory note, the date whereof is the day and *495year last aforesaid, and thereby promised and agreed to pay to the said plaintiffs, thirty days after the said date thereof, in the city and county of Galveston, the sum of $505.25 with interest thereon at the rate of ten per centum per annum until paid, and an attorney’s fee of ten per centum if legal proceedings were necessary to collect said note. Yet the said defendant, although often requested, hath not as yet paid to the said plaintiffs the said sum of money above demanded, or any part thereof, but to pay the same hath hitherto wholly failed and refused, and still doth fail and refuse, to the damage of the said plaintiffs of $1,000.” The prayer of the petition is, that “ plaintiffs have judgment for their debt, interest and costs.” They recovered judgment for their debt and interest, and for ten per cent, attorney’s fee, and for costs. *Held:*1. In the absence of special exceptions the petition is sufficient to warrant the judgment rendered upon it. 2. It is sufficiently apparent, considering the petition as a whole, that the suit is to-recover the ten per cent, attorney’s fee stipulated for in the note, as well as to recover the principal debt and interest. 3. The ten per cent, attorney’s fee became a part of the principal indebtedness whenever it became necessary to resort to legal proceedings to collect the note. 4. The happening of this contingency was shown by the allegation that, before the institution of the suit, defendant had been often requested to pay the note, but had failed and refused to do so.- 5. In claiming and praying for the recovery of the debt due them, plaintiffs claimed and prayed for the stipulated attorney’s fee, said fee having become a part of said indebtedness, by reason of the happening of said contingency. 6. The allegations and prayer of the petition are not as direct and specific in relation to the attorney’s fee as they should have been, but not having been specially excepted to, are deemed sufficient to uphold the judgment for that part of the indebtedness.

February 21, 1885.

Affirmed.