alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### D. A. Word and wife v. J. J. Reither.

(No. 3486.)

Appeal from Guadalupe County.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 778. *Appeal bond from justice's court; competency of sureties on; case stated.*Word and wife sued Neither in justice’s court, and sued out a writ of sequestration in the suit, which was levied upon his property. He pleaded in reconvention for damages because of the wrongful suing out of the writ. On the trial he recovered judgment for $80 damages and costs against Word and wife and the sureties on their sequestration bond. Word and wife appealed to the county court, but their sureties did not join in said appeal, but signed the appeal bond of Word' and wife as sureties, and were the only sureties upon said bond. In the county court, upon motion of Neither, the appeal was dismissed upon the ground that the sureties upon the appeal bond were incompetent as such. *Held:*In Heidenheimer Bros. v. Bledsoe [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 316], a similar question came before this court, and in passing upon it the previous decisions of our supreme court upon like questions were reviewed, and the conclusion reached that the cases of Trammell v. Trammell, 15 Tex. 291, and Saylor v. Marx, 56 Tex. 90, settled the rule to be, that sureties upon a claim bond, or a cost bond, or a replevy bond, who do not join in the appeal, although judgment may have been rendered against them as such sureties, are nevertheless competent sureties upon an appeal bond given by the principal in such judgment. We think the same rule applies to sureties on a sequestration bond. Appellee contends that, in the case of sequestration, the sureties upon the sequestration bond are primarily liable for the judgment, whereas, in the case of a claim or replevy bond, their liability is not primary, and that the case of Trammell v. Trammell, *supra,*draws this distinction. We concede the force of *683this argument, but it seems to us to be answered by Saylor v. Marx, *supra,*which was a case where the sureties were primarily liable to the extent of the costs, they being sureties upon the cost bond, and the judgment being against them as such, for the costs. We think the appeal bond was sufficient, and that the court erred in -dismissing the appeal.

May 13, 1885.

Reversed and remanded.
#### T. F. Miles v. J. K. Patterson.

(No. 3570.)

Appeal from McLennan County.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 783. *Warranty of chattels; measure of damage for breach of; insufficient evidence of damage; case stated.*Miles sold Patterson a car-load of wheat at $1 par bushel, the wheat to be delivered at Temple. The sale was made by sample. Patterson paid $125 for the wheat before receiving it. He claims that after receiving it he found, upon examination, that it was musty and greatly damaged, and far inferior to the sample. He notified Miles that it was damaged, and demanded his money back, and to come and get the wheat or he would grind it into flour and hold him responsible for damages. Miles did not get the wheat and did not pay back the money. Patterson ground the wheat into flour, and sold the flour after keeping it on hand about one year. He then brought this suit against Miles for damages for breach of warranty, and recovered judgment for $200 and costs. *Held:*In this case the proper legal measure of damages is the difference between the value of the wheat delivered and' the value of the wheat purchased, at the time and place of delivery. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 189, 227, 889; Stark v. Alford, 19 Tex. 260.] The evidence *688wholly fails to show what this difference was. Appellee testified that he had been damaged in the transaction more than $200, but this statement is too general and indefinite to form the basis of a judgment. It is not shown how much of the wheat was damaged. Some of it was good, some was bad; but the proportions of good and bad, appellee could not state. He exchanged the flour, he says,.for “chickens, chips and whetstones,” but cannot state the value of the articles he received in exchange. It was mere guesswork to render judgment in his favor for $200 upon this character of evidence. There was no evidence by which any damages could be legally estimated and awarded. *[Ante,*§§ 162, 288; W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 861, 1109.]

June 24, 1885.

Reversed and remanded.
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
EXHIBIT 32.1

In connection  with Form 10-KSB Annual Report of Winmax  Trading Group Inc. (the
"Company")  for the period ended  December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the undersigned hereby
certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      o     the Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      o     the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


Date: October 29, 2004

/s/ Gerald E. Sklar
-------------------------
Gerald E. Sklar
Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating,  acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been  provided to Winmax  Trading  Group,  Inc. and
will be retained by Winmax Trading  Group,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Michael WELCH, et al. v. Willis-Knighton PIERREMONT, et al.

No. 2011-C-0109.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 25, 2011.

In re Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund; Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Board; —Other(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 480,461; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,554-CA.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  financial  information  extracted from the consolidated
financial statements of FirstSpartan Financial Corp. for the year ended June 30,
2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial  statements
(dollars in thousands).
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                               13,375
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                6,951
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                        280
<TRADING-ASSETS>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>          33,693
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   25
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     26
<LOANS>                             505,028
<ALLOWANCE>                           3,474
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      585,657
<DEPOSITS>                          419,619
<SHORT-TERM>                          8,763
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                   5,891
<LONG-TERM>                          82,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                 44
<OTHER-SE>                           69,384
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>      585,657
<INTEREST-LOAN>                      37,622
<INTEREST-INVEST>                     3,284
<INTEREST-OTHER>                          0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                     40,906
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                   17,157
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   21,223
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                19,683
<LOAN-LOSSES>                           683
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                        0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                      13,448
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       9,808
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>            9,808
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                          5,942
<EPS-BASIC>                            1.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                          1.77
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                         3.73
<LOANS-NON>                           3,420
<LOANS-PAST>                             23
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                      1,419
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                       5,998
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                      2,896
<CHARGE-OFFS>                           110
<RECOVERIES>                              5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                     3,474
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                  3,474
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                       0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                   0



</TABLE>
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement (Nos. 333-167388, 333-157417, 333-140238 and 333-104105) on Form S-8 and Registration Statements (Nos. 333-170140, 333-166277, 333-148779, 333-146691 and 333-138405) on Form S-3 of Senesco Technologies, Inc and Subsidiary of our report dated September 28, 2011, relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Senesco Technologies, Inc and Subsidiary for the year ended June 30, 2011.





/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP





New York, New York


September 28, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1515 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  Union Calendar No. 51
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1515

                          [Report No. 110-86]

  To amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to treat 
    certain communities as metropolitan cities for purposes of the 
               community development block grant program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2007

  Mr. Costello (for himself and Mr. Shimkus) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

                             April 16, 2007

   Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
                    Union, and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to treat 
    certain communities as metropolitan cities for purposes of the 
               community development block grant program.

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

SECTION 1. METROPOLITAN CITIES.

    Paragraph (4) of section 102(a) of the Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new sentence: ``Notwithstanding any other provision 
of this paragraph, with respect to any fiscal year beginning after the 
date of the enactment of this sentence, the cities of Alton and Granite 
City, Illinois, shall be considered metropolitan cities for purposes of 
this title.''.
                                                  Union Calendar No. 51

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1515

                          [Report No. 110-86]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to treat 
    certain communities as metropolitan cities for purposes of the 
               community development block grant program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 16, 2007

   Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
                    Union, and ordered to be printed
```
#### STATE ex rel. Mickell A. CALVERT v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0107.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Calvert, Mickell A.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 05-CR10-92582; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1486.

Denied.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small business Investment Company License No. 06/76-0316 issued to SBIC Partners II, L.P.,  on June 16, 1998 and said license is hereby declared null and void as of July 28, 2010.

United States Small Business Administration.

Sean J. Greene,

AA/Investment.

[FR Doc. 2010-24612 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Tyrone WELLS.

No. 2009-KK-2556.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 25, 2009.

In re State of Louisiana;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 441-698; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1577.

Denied.

KNOLL, J.,

would grant with order, reversing the lower courts on the merits of the search warrant issue, but reversing to the trial court the right to hold a contempt hearing on the state’s contemptuous conduct.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.
EXHIBIT 21.1

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF STAFF LEASING, INC.

Staff Acquisition, Inc.

Staff Insurance, Inc.

Staff Leasing, L.P.

Staff Leasing II, L.P.

Staff Leasing III, L.P.

Staff Leasing IV, L.P.

Staff Leasing V, L.P.

Staff Leasing of Georgia,  L.P.

Staff Leasing of Georgia II, L.P.

Staff Leasing of Georgia III, L.P.

Staff Leasing of Texas,  L.P.

Staff Leasing of Texas II, L.P.

P. S. of New Mexico, Inc.

Staff Insurance Corp.
#### Craig A. RIDLEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D12-4535.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 19, 2012.

*1274Craig A. Ridley, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied as premature.

CLARK, MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of
South Jersey Gas Company (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David A. Kindlick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 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/ David A. Kindlick
-------------------------------------------
Name: David A. Kindlick
Title: Chief Financial Officer
March 31, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         792,111
<SECURITIES>                                 1,662,394
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,038,921
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,041
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,672,199
<PP&E>                                       1,342,266
<DEPRECIATION>                                 949,348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,599,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,662,902
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         9,050
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     17,069
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,599,339
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,326,231
<CGS>                                          863,518
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  863,518
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,214,852
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,958
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                243,903
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            243,903
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   243,903
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boyd Bros. Transportation
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Richard C. Bailey, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m
                or 78o(d); and

        (2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of
                operations of the Company.


By:     /s/ RICHARD C. BAILEY
    -------------------------

Richard C. Bailey
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24547]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending September 18, 2010

    The following Applications for:
    Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air 
Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the 
Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 
301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, 
or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. 
Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by 
expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a 
show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final 
order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0235.
    Date Filed: September 17, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: October 8, 2010.
    Description: Application of Star Marianas Air, Inc. requesting 
authority to operate scheduled passenger service as a commuter air 
carrier.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-24547 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P