alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### P. C. PFEIFFER CO., Inc., Appellant, v. Richard Harvey BILL, the S.S. DAVID D. IRWIN and the Pure Oil Company, Appellees.

No. 21005.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

May 11, 1964.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, 1964.

*527Carl 0. Bue, Jr., Ben L. Reynolds, Houston, Tex., Royston, Rayzor & Cook, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for appellant.

Everett Lord, Carl Waldman, Beaumont, Tex., for appellee Richard Harvey Bill.

Dave McNeill, Jr., Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Searls, Houston, Tex., P. A. Gaudet, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, La., for appellee Pure Oil Co.

Before HUTCHESON, PRETTY-MAN * and JONES, Circuit Judges.

*

 Of the D.C.Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

This is a libel in admiralty brought by Richard Harvey Bill, a longshoreman, against a merchant vessel and its owner for personal injuries allegedly suffered by the libelant while working aboard the vessel. The stevedoring contractor (P. C. Pfeiffer Co., Inc.) was impleaded as a respondent. The case was tried by the district judge without a jury, and the judge made findings of fact and reached conclusions of law. He rendered judgement for the libelant. The respondentimpleaded appeals.

Two questions are presented:

1. Whether the findings of the district court as to the unseaworthiness of the vessel were clearly erroneous.

2. Whether the district court was in error in the findings and conclusions in which the liability for the injury was divided between the libelant, on account of a pre-existing ailment, and the respondent, on account of the accident, and the latter portion was further diminished on account of contributory negligence on the part of the libelant.

We find no error.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 89 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7634]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       SET A GOOD EXAMPLE PROGRAM

 Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would like to take this 
opportunity to recognize two elementary schools from Shreveport, LA, 
that placed in the top five in the 1994-95 Set a Good Example Contest 
sponsored by the Concerned Businessmen's Association of America. 
Westwood Elementary School placed first and Lakeshore Elementary School 
placed fifth in this competition, which is based on the idea that 
teaching children common sense values and encouraging them to serve as 
role models for their peers is a workable solution for preventing 
juvenile crime, drug abuse, illiteracy, and delinquency. More than 
7,500 schools and close to 7 million students have participated in this 
innovative and visionary program since its creation in 1984.
  The Set a Good Example Contest is unique because students design 
their own program to improve their school environment. The students at 
Westwood Elementary chose the theme ``Westwood Respects All,'' and 
decided to strive for a 95-percent improvement in discipline and 
behavior schoolwide. Lakeshore Elementary students decided on the 
concept ``Tell the Truth,'' and also emphasized stopping violence both 
in school and at home. The children from these two Louisiana schools 
organized several impressive activities to educate themselves and 
others on the dangers of gangs, drugs, and violence. The initiative and 
creativity they showed in organizing food drives, encouraging 
recycling, decorating their schools with antidrug and antiviolence 
slogans, and improving the environment are worthy of our admiration and 
commendation.
  I am pleased and proud to acknowledge this fine accomplishment by the 
Westwood and Lakeshore schools. These students, who will be the leaders 
of tomorrow, have shown dedication to bettering themselves and their 
environment. If this type of involvement is any indication of the way 
America's youth will address issues in the future, then we should not 
worry, for we are headed in the right direction. The bold stand against 
violence and the endorsement of positive values like honesty and 
discipline by these students should service as an outstanding example 
and inspiration for their peers. I salute the students and faculty of 
the Westwood and Lakeshore elementary schools and hope that the youth 
of our Nation will follow in your footsteps.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S 10-Q FOR THE THREE
MONTHS PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             491
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,321
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,486
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,581
<PP&E>                                          31,863
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,923
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           85,743
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           160
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,198
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,797
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,520
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,540
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (20)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,049)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,541)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,508)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,508)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Damon David CALISTE.

No. 2010-K-2615.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Caliste, Damon David; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 460590; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 0650.

Denied.
<PAGE>   1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-34263) of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. of our
report dated March 19, 1999 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and 
includes an explanatory paragraph relating to a change in the method of 
accounting for contingent rents to conform to the consensus reached by the 
Emerging Issues Task Force in Issue 98-9 on May 21, 1998) appearing in this 
Annual Report on Form 10-K of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for the year 
ended December 31, 1998.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 29, 1999
No. 11,488.

#### Kennell et al. *v.*Smith.

*Pbactice.*— Supreme *Court.*— Where the evidence is not in the record, the Supreme Court will not review the finding of the trial court upon an issue of fact.

*Same.*— Assignment *of*Error.— *Waiver.*—Assignments of error not discussed are considered as waived.

From the Cass Circuit Court.

*M. D. Fansler,*for appellants.

*D. B. McConnell, R. Magee*and *S. T. McConnell,*for appellee.

Franklin, C.

This is a drainage proceeding commenced in the circuit court by appellee under the statute of 1881.

The petition was filed, notice given and proof filed; the matter referred to the drainage commissioners and their report filed, when appellants filed a remonstrance. There was a trial by the court, a finding for appellee, and, over motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, the ditch was established, ordered to be constructed, and one of the commissioners was appointed to superintend the work.

The errors assigned are:

1st. Overruling the demurrer to the petition and report of the drainage commissioners.

2d. Confirming the report of commissioners and establishing the ditch.

*495Filed Feb. 14, 1885.

3d. Overruling motion for a new trial.

4th. Overruling motion in arrest of judgment.

The record does not show that any demurrer was filed to-the petition or report of the commissioners. No question is presented by the first specification of error.

The only objection made to the confirmation of the report and the establishment of the ditch was made by filing the remonstrance. The only question presented and discussed by appellants in their brief is under the fourth cause of remonstrance filed by appellants, which reads as follows: “-That it is not practicable to accomplish said proposed drainage without an expense exceeding the aggregate benefits.”

This cause of remonstrance presented an issue of feet to be tried by the court, without a jury, and if the finding was in-support of the remonstrance, the proceedings should have been dismissed. R. S. 1881, section 4276. Upon the trial the finding by the court was in favor of the petitioners. The evidence is not in the record, and no question is- discussed or referred to in appellants’ brief under the motion for a new trial. As to this fourth cause of remonstrance, no question is presented to this court in a way that any decision can be made upon it.

Nothing is said in appellants’ brief in relation to the motion in arrest of judgment. This assignment of error is, therefore, considered as waived. We find no error in this-record.

The judgment ought to be affirmed.

Pee Cueiam. — It is therefore ordered, upon the foregoing opinion, that the judgment of the court below be and it is in all things affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 10.2
 MakeMusic, Inc.
Executive Incentive Compensation Plan
 ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
 Annual Incentive Compensation .
 ARTICLE 2. ADMINISTRATION
 Administration and Delegation of Authority .
 Powers .
 ARTICLE 3. PARTICIPATION
 Selection of Participants and Plan Entry .
 ARTICLE 4. INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PAYMENTS
 Performance Objectives
 - 1 -




---



##### 



Determination of Annual Incentive Compensation .
 Determination of Incentive Compensation Components .
 Certification of Payout .
 Total Value of Payout .
 Forfeiture of Earned Amount .
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Good Reason .
 Cause .
 Disability .
 - 3 -




---



##### 



Cash Incentive .
 Amount of Cash Incentive .
 Limitation .
 Payment .
 Restricted Stock Award .
 Maximum Restricted Stock Award .
 Earned Restricted Stock Award .
 - 4 -




---



##### 



Risks of Forfeiture .
 Option Grant .
 Other Awards .
 ARTICLE 5. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
 Nontransferability .
 Liability of Company .
 - 5 -




---



##### 



Binding Effect .
 Payment in Case of Incompetency .
 Withholding .
 Right to Terminate Employment .
 Compliance with Applicable Laws .
 Notices .
 Headings .
 - 6 -




---



##### 



Amendment and Termination .
 Governing Law .
  - 7 -




---



##### 



MAKEMUSIC, INC./s/ Ronald RaupRonald RaupChief Executive Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Mark PITTMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2501.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Pittman, Mark; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 03-221; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-735.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
#### The Attorney General v. George C. Huebner, Treasurer of Wayne County.

*Liquor traffic*— Payment *of tax*— Filing *bond.*

A county treasurer has no right to receive and receipt for a liquor tax under the liquor law of 1887 until the statutory bond is-filed in his office.

*Mandamus.*

Argued April *21,*1892.

Granted April 22, 1892.

Relator applied for *mandamus*to compel the respondent to refrain from receiving and receipting for liquor taxes before the filing of the statutory bond. The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Levi L. Barbour*and *DeForest Paine,*for relator.

*William J. Gray,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

This is an application for a *mandamus,*directing the county treasurer to refrain from receiving and receipting for a liquor tax before the filing of the bond required by statute.

Respondent contends that there is no provision of the statute requiring the approval and filing of the bond to-precede the issuing of the receipt for the tax. It is true that theje is no express provision_ to that effect. The statute, however, prohibits the applicant from engaging in the saloon business until the bond is approved by the proper body, and filed with the county treasurer, the tax paid, etc.

The simple question is whether the statute contem*437plates that the county treasurer shall receive the amount of the tax, and issue a receipt therefor, until such time as the party proposing to pay the tax has become entitled lawfully to engage in that business by complying with the other provisions of the statute. The statute requires that the bond shall be approved by the township board, the village council, or the common council; but the bond is not filed with the town clerk, the village clerk, the city clerk, or the county clerk, but the statute expressly provides that it shall be filed with the county treasurer. It seems to us that the express purpose of this requirement is to enable the county treasurer to determine, before taking the money and issuing his receipt, that the applicant has complied with the provisions of the statute respecting the bond.

In *Rode v. Phelps,*80 Mich. 610, we considered this question, and held that we would, not compel the treasurer to issue the receipt, because the ' proper bond had not been filed with him according to law.

The writ will issue directing respondent to require the filing of the bond provided for by the statute, and the payment of the tax, before-the issue of the receipt.

No costs will be awarded.

Grant, J., did not sit.
#### Charles ARMSTRONG, Appellant, v. HARRISON FAMILY; McQuay Family; Vinita Park Police Department; Ku Klux Klan, Overland, Missouri; Ku Klux Klan, State of Missouri, Appel-lees.

No. 00-3156.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 22, 2000.

Filed Jan. 5, 2001.

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Charles Armstrong appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing his pro se civil rights complaint against multiple defendants. After careful review of the record, we conclude that Mr. Armstrong’s complaint was frivolous and failed to state a claim. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)®, (ii); *Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic,*506 U.S. 263, 267-68, 113 S.Ct. 753, 122 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993); *Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); *West v. Atkins,*487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988); *Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,*436 U.S. 658, 691-95, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

1

. The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
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-K of OmniComm Systems, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2009, 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, 2010
583 A.2d 339

#### ATLANTIC STATES CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, ET AL. v. NEW SANITARY LANDFILL FACILITY CONTINGENCY FUND, ET AL.

March 7, 1990.

This matter having been presented to the Court on motion by the Attorney General for leave to appeal the order of the *651Appellate Division denying the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss the complaint of plaintiffs and remanding the matter to the Chancery Division for further proceedings including the making of an evidentiary record;

And it appearing that the complaint challenges the validity of the actions of a State administrative agency, namely, the issuance of a Directive for costs and treble damages directed against plaintiffs by the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to *N.J.S.A.*58:10-23.11f (a) (Spill Fund Directive);

And it further appearing that the aforesaid complaint concerns the validity and enforceability of the Spill Fund Directive and alleges grounds that may constitute good-cause defenses to an action to enforce the Spill Fund Directive, as set forth in *In re Kimber Petroleum Corp.,*110 *N.J.*69, 539 A.2d 1181 (1988), the determination of which need not require the development of an evidentiary record; it is further

ORDERED that the motion for leave to appeal is granted to the extent that the Appellate Division order remanding the matter to the Chancery Division is summarily reversed; and it is further

ORDERED that the Appellate Division shall reconsider the motion of the Attorney General to dismiss the complaint, see *In re Kimber Petroleum Corp., supra; In re J.I.S. Industrial Service Co. Landfill,*110 *N.J.*101, 539 A.2d 1197 (1988); and it is further

ORDERED that the motion for leave to appeal is, in all other respects, denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry
J. White, Jr., Chief Financial 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated: July 29, 2003                           /s/ HARRY J. WHITE, JR.
                                               ------------------------
                                                   Harry J. White, Jr.

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



EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF WEBMETHODS, INC.

|                                  |  |                
|--------------------------------- |  | ---------------
|NAME                              |  | ORGANIZED IN   
|                                  |  |                
|webMethods West, Inc.             |  | Delaware       
|Intelliframe Corporation          |  | Pennsylvania   
|webMethods Worldwide, Inc.        |  | California     
|webMethods UK Ltd.                |  | United Kingdom 
|webMethods BV                     |  | the Netherlands
|webMethods Germany GmbH           |  | Germany        
|webMethods France Sarl            |  | France         
|webMethods Australia Pty Ltd.     |  | Australia      
|webMethods Japan Kabushiki Kaisha |  | Japan          
|webMethods Singapore Pte Ltd.     |  | Singapore      
|webMethods Hong Kong, Ltd.        |  | Hong Kong      
|webMethods Korea Co., Ltd.        |  | South Korea    
|webMethods Malaysia Sdn Bhd       |  | Malaysia
**EXHIBIT 31.4****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Robert J. Colletti, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annualreport on Form 10-K of Eclipsys Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to statea material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport;     3. Omitted;     4. Omitted;     5. Omitted;     6. Omitted.     /s/ Robert J. Colletti           Robert J. Colletti *Chief Financial Officer*Dated: May 2, 2005
20
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Jonathan Ali Chtay, Appellant

No. 06-14-00018-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 196th District Court of 

Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 22,939). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Jonathan Ali Chtay, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 31, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### Jamie CASS v. Kevin Charlie CASS.

No. 2011-CJ-0178.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 25, 2011.

In re Cass, Jamie; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Grant, 35th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 19395; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-327.

Denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 13

- 00829

- CV

Antonio SEPEDA

, Appellant

v.

Amy C. SEPEDA

, Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 17885

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 15, 2014

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss th is appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

PER CURIAM