alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Whitman Agricultural Co. v. Carl Voss.

(No. 1775.)

Appeal from Harris County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 54-8. *Appeal from justice’s to county court; justice’s transcript may be considered in determining validity of appeal bond.*Voss recovered a judgment against appellant in justice’s court, from which appellant appealed to the county court. It appears from the justice’s transcript that two appeal bonds had been tendered by appellant to the justice, the first of which said justice refused to approve. The second bond was approved by the justice, and sent up with the papers in the case as part of the record to the county court, but had not been marked filed by said justice, nor was his approval indorsed upon it, but his transcript showed that said bond had been approved by him. In the county court Voss moved to *492quash this bond and dismiss the appeal. Appellant moved to allow the justice to approve and file the bond *nunc pro tunc.*The latter motion was refused, and the former was sustained, the bond quashed, and judgment rendered against appellant and its sureties upon said bond for the costs. *Held:*It is a rule now well settled, that, in determining the question of jurisdiction on appeal from justice’s to county court, it is proper to look to the entire record and transcript of the justice. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 408.] Looking to the justice’s transcript in this case, it shows that the appeal bond which was quashed was approved by him. This was equivalent to an indorsement of approval upon the bond itself.

§ 549. *Same; when bond is neither approved nor filed, it is invalid.*Had the bond been neither approved nor filed, but appeared in the record without any evidence or presumption of its verity or authenticity, its embodiment in the record would have been unauthorized, imparting to it no force or validity, and it would not have been entitled to consideration. [McLane v. Russell, 29 Tex. 127.]

§ 550. *Same; approval presumed, when.*If the bond had been filed by the justice, a formal approval would have been unnecessary, or would have been presumed from the filing and the return of it to the proper court. [Dyches v. State, 24 Tex. 266; Doughty v. State, 33 Tex. 1; Cundiff v. State, 38 Tex. 641; Taylor v. State, 16 Tex. App. 514; W. & W. Con. Rep. § 563.]

§ 551. *Same; filing presumed from approval.*If the bond be properly approved, the filing of it will be presumed. It is only where there is neither filing nor approval that the bond will be held invalid. [McLane v. Russell, 29 Tex. 128.]

| 552. *Same; omission of file mark does not affect validity of.*The failure to place a file mark on the bond did not affect its validity, nor prejudice the rights of the appellant. [Knight v. Holliman, 6 Tex. 153; Holman v. Chevallier, 14 Tex. 337; Turner v. State, 41 Tex. 549.]

*493February 28, 1885.

§ 553. *Same; may be approved arid filed nunc pro tuno.*Appellant was entitled to have the justice approve and file the bond *nunc pro tunc,*and it was error to refuse his motion asking that this be done. [Slocumb v. State, 11 Tex. 15; Holman v. Chevallier, 14 Tex. 337.]

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1193]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 TRIBUTE TO LOUISVILLE MALE HIGH SCHOOL

                                 ______

                             HON. MIKE WARD

                              of kentucky

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, June 7, 1995
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
congratulate the outstanding performance of Louisville Male High School 
from Louisville, KY, in the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the 
Constitution'' national competition which was held in Washington, DC, 
April 29-May 1. These outstanding young people competed against 49 the 
classes from throughout the Nation and demonstrated a remarkable 
understanding of the fundamental ideals and values of American 
constitutional government.
  This program is administered by the Center for Civic Education and is 
one of the most extensive of its kind. In its 8-year history the 
program has reached more than 20 million students in elementary, middle 
and high school. The competition at the national level simulates a 
congressional hearing during which students testify as constitutional 
experts before a panel of judges. I applaud this program and, as a 
result, these students for their participation in an invaluable 
educational experience.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that a copy of the list of participants which I am 
submitting be placed in the Congressional Record. I hope that the 
students of Male High School will continue their interest in 
Government.
  The competing class was from Louisville Male High School. The teacher 
was Sandra Hoover. The students were as follows: Shannon Bender, Josh 
Bridgwater, Shilo Burke, Katie Callender, Scott Embry, Jessi 
Followwill, Adam Greenwell, John Grissom, Christy Jones, Jonathan 
Keith, Stephanie McAlmont, Stephen McAlmont, Shannon McMillan, Travis 
Moore, Kristi Mosier, Adam Pedigo, Melanie Rapp, Amber Rowan, Chris 
Rutledge, Shannon Simms, Eric Stevens, April Stivers, Ricky Suel, 
Danyaun Vandgrift, and Shaniqua Wade. The State coordinator was Tami 
Dowler. The district coordinator was Tommy Dowler.

                          ____________________
```
#### ARTHUR KAHN CO., Inc., v. SWITZER BROS., Inc., et al.

Civ. No. 28165.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

*Oct*1, 1951.

John F. Oberlin, Cleveland, Ohio, George B. Finnegan, Jr., and Morgan, Finnegan & Durham, all of New York City, for plaintiff.

Ely & Frye and Albert L. Ely, Jr., all of Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

*542JONES, Chief Judge.

In renewing the motion for temporary injunction earlier denied in memorandum dated September 7, 1951, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 538, the plaintiff relies upon a statement in the memorandum of the Court inferring that the intervention of the plaintiff in the Texas suit creates a situation in which the law respecting identity of parties and issues is fulfilled, under Cresta Blanca Wine Co. v. Eastern Wine Corporation, 2 Cir., 143 F.2d 1012; Triangle Conduit & Cable Co. v. National Electric Products Corp., 3 Cir., 138 F.2d 46; Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 3 Cir., 122 F.2d 925.

Upon reflection and consideration of the renewal of the motion for temporary injunction against the prosecution of the Texas suit, the Court has reached the conclusion that the case here is not identical with the action commenced against customers in Texas.

In the case here a declaratory judgment is sought 'by the plaintiff manufacturer of flourescent fabric, alleged to be using the patents of Switzer Brothers, Inc., plaintiff in the Texas suit.

The Texas action is one brought by Switzer Brothers, Inc., against certain customers of the plaintiff, and customers of those customers, for infringement of the Switzer patents. As stated above, the case here seeks a declaratory judgment holding the Switzer patents invalid and not infringed which, I think, is a wholly different case than the one in Texas in which Switzer Brothers, Inc., seeks to prevent the infringement of patents not yet held invalid. To enjoin Switzer Brothers, Inc., in the Texas suit from prosecuting alleged infringers in such situation presents a question which must give a court pause in responding to the motion for a temporary injunction.

The granting or withholding of a temporary injunction is a matter of discretion, although such discretion must be exercised reasonably and within the purview of the law applicable in such case. However, in determining whether an injunction should be granted or withheld, the •court, in exercising that discretion, is permitted to balance the respective equities and probable damages to one or the other of the parties from a relative standpoint, and determine as nearly as may be where the lesser damage lies. Consequently, it seems to me that this Court must hesitate to prevent Switzer Brothers, Inc., licensee of the patents in question, from protecting what presently, to all intents and purposes, are valid patents.

Accordingly, the motion for temporary injunction must foe denied.

Respecting the motion of the defendant here to enjoin the prosecution of the counterclaim in the Texas case, — it will be denied in view of the action above.
<PAGE>
=============================================================================

                               UNITED STATES
                    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                         Washington, D. C.  20549

                            ___________________

                               FORM 10-Q/A-1

         [X]  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
                    THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

  For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 1997 Commission File No. 0-23596

                                    OR

        [   ]  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
                    THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

               For the transition period from            to

                            ___________________

                         C-CUBE MICROSYSTEMS INC.
          (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

            Delaware                       77-0192108
(State or other jurisdiction of         (I.R.S. Employer
 incorporation or organization)       Identification No.)

                    1778 McCarthy Boulevard
                  Milpitas, California  95035
     (Address and zip code of principal executive offices)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:    (408) 944-6300

Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last
year:     N/A

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to
such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

                        [X]  Yes         [   ]  No

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes
of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

As of July 31, 1997, 36,520,587 shares of the Registrant's Common Stock
were outstanding.

=============================================================================

<PAGE>
The registrant hereby amends its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed
August 14, 1997 as follows:


Footnote (1) to Exhibit 10.38 of Item 6(a) and the Exhibit Index is amended
and restated in full to read "Confidential treatment requested as to the
redacted portions of this exhibit."


<PAGE>

                                Signatures



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

                                          C-Cube Microsystems Inc.
                                          (Registrant)


Dated:  October 8, 1997             By:  /s/  John J. Hagedorn
       -----------------                -----------------------
                                           John J. Hagedorn
                                    Vice President of Finance and
                               Administration, Chief Financial Officer
                                            and Secretary
#### A. H. Knight v. George Grigsby.

(No. 6670.)

Appeal from Cooke County.

Davis & Harris, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 124. *Appeal bond; date of judgment; correctness of recital of in bond may be shotvn in contradiction of judgment entry.*On June 24, 1889, appellee recovered a judgment against appellant in justice’s court. On June 29, 1889, appellant filed with the justice an appeal bond, which bond was approved, and the cause was removed to the county court, where, on motion of appellee, the *186appeal was dismissed upon the ground that the appeal bond misdescribed the judgment. The supposed misdescription consisted in describing the judgment as of date June 24, 1889, when the judgment in the justice’s transcript bore date June 30, 1889. Upon the hearing of the motion to dismiss,' appellant proved conclusively that the date given in the bond, June 24, 1889, was the date on which the judgment was in fact rendered; that the date affixed to the judgment in the justice’s transcript was a mistake of the justice, explaining fully how such mistake came to be made. It is manifest from the record that the appeal bond does not misdescribe the judgment as to date, or in any other particular; and the court erred in sustaining the motion to dismiss the appeal.

June 7, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.
Deloitte &
 Touche LLP
     (logo)        Suite 1200                          Telephone (714) 436-7100
                   695 Town Center Drive               Facsimile: (714) 436-7200
                   Costa Mesa, California 92626-1924


INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS'REPORT

To Long Beach Mortgage Company:

We have examined  management's  assertion  about Long Beach  Mortgage  Company's
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  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, 1996,  included in the
accompanying  management  assertion.  Management is  responsible  'or Long Beach
Mortgage  Company'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  Long  Beach  Mortgage  Company'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 Long Beach Mortgage  Company's  compliance
with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Long Beach Mortgage Company complied
with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1996 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche


March 28, 1997



Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu
International
Exhibit
      32.1





Certification
      of Periodic Financial Report


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350








Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of RC2 Corporation
      (the "Company") certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company
      for
      the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that
      Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the Company.











Dated:
      March 3,
      2009                                                                           
/s/ Curtis W.
      Stoelting


Curtis
      W.
      Stoelting


Chief
      Executive Officer





Dated:
      March 3,
      2009                                                                          /s/ Peter
      A.
      Nicholson


Peter
      A.
      Nicholson


Chief
      Financial Officer





This
      certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to
      the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
      purpose.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60125-60126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24327]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION


SES Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members to the 
FTC Performance Review Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Leydon, Chief Human Capital 
Officer, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-
3633.

[[Page 60126]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Publication of the Performance Review Board 
(PRB) membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The PRB reviews 
and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance 
by the supervisor, and makes recommendations regarding performance 
ratings, performance awards, and pay-for-performance pay adjustments to 
the Chairman.
    The following individuals have been designated to serve on the 
Commission's Performance Review Board:

Charles H. Schneider, Executive Director, Chairman
Willard K. Tom, General Counsel
Pauline M. Ippolito, Deputy Director, Bureau of Economics
Richard A. Feinstein, Director, Bureau of Competition
Jessica L. Rich, Deputy Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection


    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24327 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
#### Michael K. Mills v. F. H. Chambers, Associate Judge of the Recorder's Court of Detroit.

*Bail*— Jurisdiction *of police justice.*

The police court of the city of Detroit has no power to admit a prisoner to bail after he is held for trial, and the papers certified to the recorder’s court.

*Mandamus.*

Argued May 3, 1892.

Denied May 4, and

opinion filed May 11, 1892.

Relator applied for *mandamus*compelling respondent to quash a *capias*for the re-arrest of relator,- and to allow the approval of a bail-bond by a police justice. The facts are stated in the opinion.

*522*Atkinson, Carpenter, Brooke & Haigh*and *William F. Atkinson,*for relator.

*Samuel W. Burroughs,*Prosecuting Attorney, and *Oscar M. Springer,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

Per Curiam.

*The sole*question of any importance is-whether the police justices of the city of Detroit have-power to admit to bail in criminal cases after persons charged with crime have been bound over to the recorder’s-court for trial.

The Detroit police court act provides that—

> *“*The police court or either police justice thex-eof, the-recorder’s court of the city of Detroit, the circuit court for the county of Wayne, and the Supreme Court of this State and the Justices thereof, and no other court, magistrate, or officer whatevei’, except as provided in. section ten, shall have power to let to bail any prisoner- or person in custody charged with a bailable crime,, misdemeanor, or offense of which the police court shall for any purpose have jurisdiction.’’1

In the pi’esent case the police court had examined the-criminal charge made against the relator, had found probable cause to believe him guilty of the offense charged, had bound him over to the recorder’s court, and certified the proceedings to that court. The police-court had thereby lost jurisdiction for any purpose whatevei. In bailable offenses, upon examination the police court should fix the amount of the bail, and give the prisoners reasonable opportunity to procure it; but its-jurisdiction ends with the certification of the papers into-the recorder’s court

The above act took effect July *4,*1886.2 Prior to that, time the police justices had power to take bail at any *523*time*before trial. Section *552,*p. 339, City Charter,. 1886.1 This provision was repealed by the law of 1886. The writ must be denied.

McGrath, J., did not sit.

1

 3 How. Stat. § 6591grl.

2

 3 How. Stat, § 65917x2.

1

 Act No. 479, § 40, Laws of 1871.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 1 9 , 2023

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 23

- 0036 7

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.R. , A CHILD

On Appeal from the 31 0 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 07130

MEMOR ANDU M O PINION

M other ’ s co unse l contends that there is no non

- friv olous ground to challe nge the trial court ’ s judgment terminati ng Mo ther ’ s parental rights to the Chi ld because there is legally and factually sufficient evidence to support at least one p redic a t e
gr ound for termi nation , including endangerment under subsection ( E), a nd that
termination is in the C hild ’ s best interest.

The brief me e ts the require ments of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the reco r d dem onstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced

. See In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d 326, 32 92

(Tex. App.

— Houston [ 14th Dist.] 200 4 , no p et.) ( An ders procedures apply to an
appe al fr om termination of parental rights)

. Mother ’ s co unsel notified t h is court
that counsel delivered to Mother a copy of the Anders brief and this court ’ s letter informing Mother about how to obtai n a copy of the record and her right t o file a
pro s e response. See id. at 329

– 30. N o pro se response has been file d.

We have reviewed the record and counse l ’ s brief and agree that there i s no

non

- frivolo us ground to cha llenge the trial court ’ s judgment terminating Moth er ’ s parental rights beca u se the evidenc e is legally and factually s ufficient to support
the tr ial court ’ s bes t

- interest finding a nd t he finding that Mother e ngaged in

con duct that endangered the physical or emotional well

- being of the Child under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) of the Family Code

. We find no revers ible error in the
record. A d etaile d discus sion of th i s issue would add nothing to the jurispruden ce of the state. See In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W. 3d at 330.
Accordingly, the trial court ’ s judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Pa nel c o n sists of Just ice s Wise , Zimmerer, and Poissant

.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60424-60430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24551]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 10-28 and 10-30]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notifications

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of two section 36(b)(1) arms sales notifications to fulfill the 
requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164, dated 21 July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following are copies of letters to the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 10-28 and 10-30 
with associated attachments.

    Dated: September 27, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[[Page 60425]]

Transmittal No. 10-28

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 10-28 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30SE10.002


[[Page 60426]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30SE10.003


[[Page 60427]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30SE10.004

Transmittal No. 10-30

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 10-30 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification.

[[Page 60428]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30SE10.005


[[Page 60429]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30SE10.006


[[Page 60430]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30SE10.007

[[FR Doc. 2010-24551 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
[BILLING CODE 5001-06-P