alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A93A0735.

#### HIBBARD v. THE STATE.

(430 SE2d 824)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant Hibbard appeals his conviction of the offense of reckless driving. Held:

Defendant’s sole enumeration of error complains that the trial court denied a motion for continuance based upon his trial counsel’s statement that he had inadequate and insufficient time for preparation for trial. On July 1, 1991, counsel was appointed to represent defendant. Appointed counsel represented defendant up until September 16, 1991, the date of the beginning of defendant’s trial, when appointed counsel was allowed to withdraw because defendant had retained counsel over the preceding weekend. Retained counsel moved for a continuance on the morning of the trial date and offered evidence that the defendant’s displeasure with appointed counsel had arisen from a disagreement with him two days previously, that it had been appointed counsel who had suggested his withdrawal, and that appointed counsel had not been “fired” by defendant.

“ ‘A motion for a continuance predicated on the basis that counsel has not had sufficient time to prepare for trial addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and a ruling denying such a motion will not be interfered with unless the judge has abused his discretion in denying the motion. (Cit.) “The conduct of the party is obviously relevant and is a proper consideration for the judge in the exercise of his discretion. (Cit.) The reason for this is to prevent a party from using . . . employment of counsel as a dilatory tactic.” (Cit.) In the instant case we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying the motion for continuance.’ *Cantrell v. State,*154 Ga. App. 725-726 (2) (270 SE2d 12) (1980). ‘ “The (appellant), not the State, is chargeable with the delay in such a situation, absent a showing of why the late employment of counsel occurred.” (Cit.)’ *Cantrell v. State,*supra at 726 (2).” *Bates v. State,*202 Ga. App. 460 (1), 461 (414 SE2d 691). See also *Wehunt v. State,*168 Ga. App. 353, 355 (3) (309 SE2d 143); *Hightower v. State,*166 Ga. App. 744 (2) (305 SE2d 372) (reversed on other grounds in *State v. Hightower,*252 Ga. 220 (312 SE2d 610)); *Cantrell v. State,*154 Ga. App. 725 (2), supra. As defendant failed to show the nature of his disagreement with appointed counsel or why that disagreement necessitated the employment of retained counsel, the trial court was authorized to conclude that defendant was attempting to use the change of counsel as a dilatory tactic. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for continuance.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beasley, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.*

*458Decided April 5, 1993.

*T. Michael Martin,*for appellant.

*Keith C. Martin, Solicitor,*for appellee.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00255-CV

Combined Financial Holdings Trust, Appellant

v.

The County of Bastrop, Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 11,930, HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER DARROW DUGGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Combined Financial Holdings Trust, through its Trustee William H.

Mikulin, filed its notice of appeal on April 24, 2015. On June 16, 2015, the Clerk of this Court sent

a letter notifying appellant that the clerk’s record was overdue and requesting that it make payment

arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status report regarding this appeal. The overduerecord notice also informed appellant that failure to make payment arrangements or respond to

the Court’s notice by June 26, 2015, could subject this appeal to dismissal for want of prosecution. 

To date, the clerk’s record in this cause has not been filed and the district clerk

has not received any payment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).
__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: July 10, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                        303,082
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               303,082
<CGS>                                          274,236
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  274,236
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (540)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,705
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,236 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,469
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,469
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.76
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7230 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7230

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 12, 2018

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 226 West Main Street in Lake City, South Carolina, as the 
              ``Postmaster Frazier B. Baker Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. POSTMASTER FRAZIER B. BAKER POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 226 West Main Street in Lake City, South Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Postmaster Frazier B. Baker Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Postmaster 
Frazier B. Baker Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40022

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICARDO GUERRERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-97-CR-187-2

- - - - - - - - - -

August 19, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Ricardo Guerrero has filed

a motion to withdraw and a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Guerrero has not responded. 

Our independent review of the brief and record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
#### STATE ex rel. Brian K. MOSBY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2600.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Mosby, Brian K; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 3169-99; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 0766.

Denied.
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 Quarterly Report of MITY Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Bradley T Nielson, 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.


Date: October 24, 2006                  /s/ Bradley T Nielson
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Bradley T Nielson
                                        Chief Executive Officer
No. 13,531.

#### Butler et al. *v.*Roberts.

*Evidence.*— Long-Hand *Manuscript of.*— Bill *of Exceptions.*— Practice.—In order to make the official reporter’s long-hand manuscript of the evidence a part of the record, it must be incorporated in a formal bill of exceptions.

Insteuctions to *Juey.*— Making *Part of Becord.*— Bill *of Exceptions.*— Prac*tice.*— Instructions which are not brought into the record by a bill of exceptions, or which are not signed by the judge and filed as a part of the record, will not be considered on appeal.

From the Newton Circuit Court.

*J. T. Saunderson*and *F. A. Comparet,*for appellants.

*E. P. Hammond*and *W. Cummings,*for appellee.

Mitchell, J.

Roberts recovered a judgment for $200 damages, in the Newton Circuit Court, against Henry and West Butler, for an alleged unlawful assault and battery committed by the defendants upon the person of the plaintiff.

The appellants ask a reversal on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, and because of alleged error committed by the court in giving and refusing certain instructions.

It would be sufficient to say that the record presents no question requiring examination, because the long-hand manuscript of the evidence, as copied by the official reporter, is not incorporated in a bill of exceptions. The supposition seems to have prevailed that the manuscript itself, by being styled a bill of exceptions containing all the evidence given in the cause, with the signature of the judge attached on a given date, constituted a sufficient bill, notwithstanding the absence of any preface or formal ending characteristic of a bill of exceptions. The statute affords a convenient and inexpensive method of certifying up the long-hand manuscript *482of the evidence, but it must be incorporated in a formal bill of exceptions. A paper does not constitute a bill of exceptions by simply being so named. *Marshall*v. *State, ex rel.,*107 Ind. 173; *Wagoner*v. *Wilson,*108 Ind. 210. Notwithstanding the informality of the bill of exceptions, we have examined what purports to be the evidence, and find that the testimony of the plaintiff himself, and that of other witnesses who testified in his behalf, fully sustains the verdict.

Filed April 25, 1889.

The instructions are copied into the transcript by the clerk, but they are not brought into the record by a bill of exceptions, nor is there anything in the transcript to show that they were signed by the judge and filed as a part of the record. *Landwerlen*v. *Wheeler,*106 Ind. 523; *Fort Wayne, etc., R. W. Co.*v. *Beyerle,*110 Ind. 100.

No question is, therefore, presented involving the propriety of the instructions given or refused.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs, and five per cent, damages:
EXHIBIT 32

  Certifications Required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned hereby certifies in his or her capacity as an officer of PennFed
Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") that the Quarterly Report of the
Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in
such report.




                                    By:  /s/ Joseph L. LaMonica
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Joseph L. LaMonica
                                         President and Chief
                                         Executive Officer

                                         Date: May 10, 2006


                                    By:  /s/ Claire M. Chadwick
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Claire M. Chadwick
                                         Senior Executive Vice President,
                                         Chief Financial Officer and Controller

                                         Date: May 10, 2006



                                       31
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


<PAGE>





                            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  periodic  report  on Form  10-K for the  period  ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report") of Industrial Minerals, Inc. (the "Company") I,
Larry Van Tol, Chief  Executive  Officer and President of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18USC ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.

Dated: March 16, 2005

/s/Larry Van Tol
------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Van Tol, Chief Executive Officer and President


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,931
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         390,554
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           394,643
<LOANS>                                      1,006,022
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,469,064
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,021,082
<SHORT-TERM>                                    12,750
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             26,538
<LONG-TERM>                                    303,001
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,633
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,469,064
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 54,909
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               19,877
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                74,786
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              35,798
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,118
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           24,668
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      450
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 12,989
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,267
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       8,476
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,476
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .87
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.43
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,963
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,424
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,919
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,622
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      423
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,649
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,649
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of Merix Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10Q), I, Mark R. Hollinger, 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 Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       | 
|---------------------- | 
|Dated October 13, 2003 | 
|                       | 
|                       |
JMK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0328

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JUAN ANASTASIO RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including August 21, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 23 2020

07/23/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0328
647 A.2d 466

#### IN THE MATTER OF JOHN L. DOWNER, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 15, 1994.

ORDER

JOHN L. DOWNER, JR., of WILLINGBORO and CHRIS-TIANSTED, AMERICAN VIRGIN ISLANDS, having been ordered to show cause on February 22, 1994, why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for failure to pay administra*26tive costs and monetary sanctions imposed in connection with a previous disciplinary matter;

And the Order to Show Cause having been discharged on March 29,1994, by way of a consent order in which respondent agreed to pay the administrative costs and sanctions in installments beginning on April 5, 1994;

And respondent having acknowledged in the consent order that his failure to pay any installment within five business days of its due date could, on the filing of an *ex parte*affidavit by the Disciplinary Review Board, result in the issuance by the Court of an order temporarily suspending respondent from practice until payment is made;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court the affidavit of Robyn M. Hill that recites the failure of respondent to make more than two installment payments, leaving an unpaid balance of $2,827;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOHN L. DOWNER, JR., of WILLING-BORO and CHRISTIANSTED, AMERICAN VIRGIN ISLANDS is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that JOHN L. DOWNER, JR., be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that JOHN L. DOWNER, JR., comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with suspended attorneys.
<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 September 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:

         (3)    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

         (4)    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
November 13, 2002
#### Howard MANCUSO and Sheila Mancuso Mouton v. Kristie Firmin SIKES, Pac.

No. 2011-CC-0811.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2011.

IN RE: Mancuso (deceased), Winifred Eunice; Mancuso, Howard et al.; Mouton, Sheila Mancuso; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No.2009-0001955; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No.2010 CW 2338;

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.