alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### H. N. Kirk et al. v. Wash Hampton.

(No. 3443.)

Error from Williamson County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 719. *Citation; requisites of; defective, when; case stated.*Judgment by default in favor of Hampton against H. N. Kirk, S. S. Kirk and J. P. Hopper, upon a promissory note. The Kirks prosecute this writ of error, assigning as error that the citations served upon them are insufficient to authorize the judgment by default. The first objection to the citations is that they do not cite the defendants to appear “ at the next regular term of the court;” the statute requiring that the citation shall command the sheriff “to summon the defendant to appear, etc., at the next regular term of the court, stating the time and place of holding the same.” [R. S. art. 1215.] These citations state the time and place of holding the court before which the defendants are summoned to appear, but fail to state that they must appear at the *631next regulax* term of said coui’t, as the statute requires should be stated. In this respect the citations are defective. *[Ante,*§ 268.] The second objection is that the citations do not state the file number of the suit. In this respect, also, the citations are defective. The statute requires that a citation “shall state the date of the filing of the plaintiff’s petitioxi, *the file number of the suit,”*etc. [E. S. art. 1215.] The provisions of the statute “are as plain as they are imperative. They cannot be mistaken; and the courts should not permit them to be disregarded. They prescribe the mode by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defexidant, and as this is necessary to give validity to its acts and judgments, the regulations on the subject should be strictly observed by the officers charged with the duty, axxd enforced by the tribunal before which the matters in coxxtroversy are to be determined. The fact that the defendant has notice, in the form prescribed by law, is vitally essexrtial to the jurisdiction. [Roberts v. Stocklager, 4 Tex. 307; Graves v. Robertson, 22 Tex. 130.] No inferexice or presumption is allowed to supply apparent defects in a citation where the judgment is by default. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 242, 243, 812; *ante, %%*101, 122.]

May 23, 1885.

Reversed and remanded.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Kelly A. LANDRY.

No. 2011-KK-0067.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Landry, Kelly A.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 24,656, *34094,555; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1981.

Denied.
#### Virginia R. HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. Dudley C. SHARP, Secretary, Department of Air Force and Roger W. Jones, et al., United States Civil Service Commission, Appellees.

No. 15499.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 29, 1960.

Decided April 7, 1960.

Mr. Charles F. O’Neall, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Miss Doris H. Spangenburg, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellees.

Before Edgerton, Danaher, and Burger, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment for the defendants in a suit for reinstatement in a clerical position from which the plaintiff was removed on charges of inefficiency and “disrupting the office”. We find no denial of procedural rights.

Affirmed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132320 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver (17) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132320 

 COA: 272849 
 Wayne CC: 83-008071-01

RAYMOND LANE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's January 4, 

2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

l0319 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: Billy Strahan v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00332

- CR, 01

- 19

- 00333

- CR

Trial court case number: 2157387, 2157386

Trial court: Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 7 of Harris County

The appellant has filed his fourth motion to extend time, seeking a one

- week extension for a total of 101 days since appellant’s brief was originally due on July 5, 2019. The appellant fil ed this motion notwithstanding the Court’s prior admonishment that no further extensions would be granted and that failure to file appellant’s brief by the third

extended deadline would result in an abatement of this appeal for a hearing. Nevertheless,

the Court GRANTS the appellant’s motion to extend time and ORDERS the appellant to
file his brief on or before October 24, 2019.

If the appellant does not file his brief by October 24, 2019, the Court will abate this appeal and remand for the trial court to immediately conduct a hearing to determine, among other things, whether the appellant wishes to prosecute the appeal and, if so , to determine whether good cause exists to relieve Daucie Schindler as the appellant’s counsel. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2)

– (4); see also T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. art s . 1.051(a), (c), (d)(1), 26.04(j)(2).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ October 22, 2019

____
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1393 

To amend the USEC Privatization Act to provide an extension of the period 

during which individuals may bring a suit for certain violations of employee protection provisions under such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2007 

Mr. WHITFIELD (for himself, Mr. WILSON of Ohio, and Mr. SHIMKUS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the USEC Privatization Act to provide an extension of the period during which individuals may bring 

a suit for certain violations of employee protection provisions under such Act. 

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


jcorcoran on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1393 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF OTHERWISE APPLICABLE STAT2 UTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CERTAIN SUITS 

3 UNDER USEC PRIVATIZATION ACT. 

4 Section 3110(a)(7)(C) of the USEC Privatization Act 

5 (42 U.S.C. 2297h–8(a)(7)(C)) is amended to read as fol6 lows: 

7 ‘‘(C) An individual aggrieved by a violation 

8 of any provision of this subsection may bring a 

9 suit in any district court of the United States 

10 having jurisdiction over the parties, without re11 gard to the amount in controversy or the citi12 zenship of the parties, to the extent such suit 

13 does not allege a violation of the National 

14 Labor Relations Act. Notwithstanding section 

15 1658 of title 28, United States Code, any such 

16 suit alleging a violation occurring on or before 

17 December 31, 2000, may be brought on or be18 fore June 30, 2009.’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
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 Senesco Technologies, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, Leslie J. Browne, Ph.D, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:


(1)           The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Senesco Technologies, Inc.




Dated: September 28, 2011
/s/ Leslie J. Browne *Leslie J. Browne, Ph.DPresident and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)





*  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Yaakov VANN, Appellant, v. Sue M. ANDRON, Appellee.

No. 4D09-4215.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 30, 2011.

Yaakov Vann, Boca Raton, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See Weisz ex rel. Weisz v. Clair,*989 So.2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

HAZOURI, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ, concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Jamal CHAPMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0872.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Chapman, Jamal R.; -Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. E, Nos. 477337, 477072; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 2303.

Denied.
## 1/tmortb~ der/:

## ~**/tUJ~~** p, 

### a- to¥ r-z-**'06~ ~-rttJ**  

## -r'l5>**7~77/**

''..

.. · .. VC A: 

### J.**~** }VV(l L 

### Gre(!;-h lJ'j!J: ·' 

### TZvkrf

### Dnttr~~eu**~oca** 

### tt> 

## Na _ l131317



### I 2-0 3 ta- · ctho (a /2)



## edt lA 

### bvtj 1**,1~** 7 

### 8 5''fz-. 

## P-.eJtUPdJ ",.;7
. 

### -f4e 

## Uual. op"111tlm'> t.N

## b-f~**~** tlo, wtl-33, /6-z-tt.( 

# and'
. Wfl:'' 33 I (fo z,-15"""
. 

### 'lrt"tu(**~+** u.4R. 

## No, 367/ZtQ.

fit.IJ(JJ 

### f- .. 

## ¥ tA),**~** ·:,.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-61148, 333-44230, 333-37916) of A.B. Watley Group Inc. and in
the related Prospectus and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.
333-67014, 333-35340) pertaining to the Stock Option Plans of A.B. Watley Group
Inc. of our report dated January 11, 2002, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of A.B. Watley Group Inc. included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 2001.

                                               /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


New York, New York
February 12, 2002
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER Appellate case name: In the Interest of O.J.P., a Child Appellate case number: 01
- 21
- 00163
- CV Trial court case number: 2016
- 25857 Trial court: 246th District Court of Harris County This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of appellant, C.D.P. Appellant has filed her third motion for extension of time to file an appellant’s brief, requesting that this Court again extend the deadline for filing appellant’s brief. Appellant’s brief was originally due on May 10, 2021. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.6(a) . Appellant requests that this Court extend the deadline for filing appellant’s brief to July 14, 2021

— sixty

- five days pa st the original due date. The motion is GRANTED
. Appellant’s brief is due on Ju ly 14 , 2021
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.6(a), (d). No further extensions will be granted
. Because this appeal involves the termination of the parent

- child relationship, the Court is required to bring the appeal to final disposition within 180 days of March 29, 2021, the date the notice of appeal was filed in this proceeding, so far as reasonabl y possible. See T EX . R. J UD . A DMIN . 6.2, reprinted in T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . , tit. 2, subtit. F app. It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature:

_____

/s/ Julie Countiss

_________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court Date:

____ June 17, 2021

______
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lawrence Frank LANDOR.

No. 2011-K-1483.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Landor, Lawrence Frank; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 419716; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1862.

Denied.
II 

Calendar No. 306 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1617 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 15, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AUGUST 1, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 561 Kingsland Avenue in University City, 

Missouri, as the ‘‘Harriett F. Woods Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HARRIETT F. WOODS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 561 Kingsland Avenue in Univer6 sity City, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Harriett F. Woods Post Office Building’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1617 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Harriett F. Woods 

5 Post Office Building’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Calendar No. 306 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1617 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostWoods Post Office Building’’. University City, Missouri, as the ‘‘Harriett F. al Service located at 561 Kingsland Avenue in 

AUGUST 1, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             462
<SECURITIES>                                       103
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,787
<ALLOWANCES>                                       547
<INVENTORY>                                        792
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,587
<PP&E>                                          28,814
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,735
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,352
<BONDS>                                          4,755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            82
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,618
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,452
<SALES>                                         15,315
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,619
<CGS>                                           13,791
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,453
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,599
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   105
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,537)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,314
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,223)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,223)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.27)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Vasilios D. PAPPAS.

No. 2011-KP-0980.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Pappas, Vasilios D.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedí*939al Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 399616; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 2350.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         948,344
<SECURITIES>                                   250,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,950,176
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    393,142
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,784,992
<PP&E>                                      84,055,016
<DEPRECIATION>                              28,381,357
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              95,992,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,137,345
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,498
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,681,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                95,992,495
<SALES>                                     98,760,593
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            98,760,593
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               92,055,970
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (72,778)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,616,645
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,160,756
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,101,852
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,058,904
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,058,904
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .86


</TABLE>
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1505 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 131 

East 4th Street in Davenport, Iowa, as the ‘‘James 

A. Leach United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1505 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States courthouse located at 131 East 

3 4th Street in Davenport, Iowa, shall be known and des4 ignated as the ‘‘James A. Leach United States Court5 house’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘James A. Leach United States 

11 Courthouse’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1505 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located 

house’’. the ‘‘James A. Leach United States Courtat 131 East 4th Street in Davenport, Iowa, as
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24329]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notices

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, September 23, 2010, at 10 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:
    Correction and Approval of Minutes.
    Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-16: EmblemHealth Services Company LLC 
and Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York by its counsel, Jerry H. 
Goldfeder, of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP.
    Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-17: Stutzman for Congress by 
Christopher M. Marston.
    Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-18: Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor 
Party by its counsel, Marc E. Elias, Esq. and Jonathan S. Berkon, Esq. 
of Perkins Coie, LLP.
    Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-19: Google by its counsel, Marc E. 
Elias, Esq. and Jonathan S. Berkon, Esq. of Perkins Coie, LLP.
    Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-20: National Defense PAC by its 
counsel, Dan Backer, Esq.
    Management and Administrative Matters.
    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such 
as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, 
should contact Lisa Chapman, Recording Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at 
least 72 hours prior to the hearing date.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Lisa Chapman,
Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-24329 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
644 A.2d 582

#### IN THE MATTER OF SUNAO T. YAMADA, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

July 14, 1994.

ORDER

The Office of Attorney Ethics having filed a petition with the Supreme Court recommending that SUNAO T. YAMADA of JERSEY CITY, be immediately temporarily suspended from the practice of law, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that SUNAO T. YAMADA is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the Office of Attorney Ethics take such protective action, pursuant to *Rule*l:20-ll(c), as may be appropriate to gain possession and control of the legal files, records, practice and trust assets of SUNAO T. YAMADA, wherever situate, pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that SUNAO T. YAMADA show cause before this Court on September 27, 1994, at 2:00 p.m., Supreme Court Courtroom, Hughes Justice Complex, Trenton, New Jersey, why his temporary suspension and the restraints herein should not continue pending final disposition of any ethics proceedings pending against him and further why the funds restrained from disbursement should not be transmitted by the financial institutions who *107are the present custodians to the Clerk of the Superior Court for deposit in the Superior Court Trust Fund, pending the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that David E. Johnson, Jr., Esquire, or his designee, present this matter to the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that SUNAO T. YAMADA be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with suspended attorneys.
#### M.Y., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-2030.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 27, 2011.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heidi Milan Caballero, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ and SHEPHERD, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

*ON CONFESSION OF ERROR*

Based upon the State’s proper and commendable confession of error, we reverse the adjudication of delinquency for reckless driving and remand with directions to the trial court to vacate the adjudication of delinquency as to that offense. *See Nesbitt v. State,*889 So.2d 801, 802 (Fla.2004); *V.C. v. State,*63 So.3d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); *S.J. v. State,*831 So.2d 1288, 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 28.4.

Reversed and remanded with directions.