alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### B. H. Triplett *v.*S. R. Chrisman.

Commissioner’s Sales — Decretal Orders Mere Offers — Should be Set Aside When Property Sacrificed.

It is universally understood that sales by a commissioner under dé-' cret&l orders are mere offers and not sales until confirmed by the oourt, which should always set them aside when the property has been sacrificed and reliable bids to advance the price has been made.

APPEAL EROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

June 11, 1867.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Williams:

The property sold by the commissioner and bid off by Triplett was greatly sacrificed, and before the confirmation of the sale, or payment of the money, Chrisman petitioned to have it set aside, and with other responsible names offered to advance the bid more than threefold, including the mortgage debt to which it was subject, he also tendered the money due the plaintiff in the judgment.

It is universally understood that sales by commissioners under decretal orders are mere offers and not sales until confirmed by the court, which should always set them aside when the property has been greatly sacrificed and reliable bids to advance the price greatly has been made before the payment of the money or confirmation of the sale. Judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 ManTech International Corporation (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, George J. Pedersen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ronald R. Spoehel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by law.



Date: May 09, 2005



|       |  |                                                               
|------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ GEORGE J. PEDERSEN                                        
|Name:  |  | George J. Pedersen                                            
|Title: |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ RONALD R. SPOEHEL                                         
|Name:  |  | Ronald R. Spoehel                                             
|Title: |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Director



22
No. 87-1273.

#### Wislocki-Goin *v.*Mears, Judge, Lake County Superior Court, Juvenile Division, et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
CERTIFICATION OF
           PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, David Goldberg certify that:

I have reviewed this annual report on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-KSB of
Championlyte Holdings, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weakness in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether there were significant changes
in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.


Dated: March 15, 2005

/s/ David Goldberg
--------------------------------------
Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 17, 2013

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00876-CR

ALEX MELVIN WADE, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 285866

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

Appellant Alex Melvin Wade, Jr. filed a “petition for writ of error coram 

nobis” in the district court, challenging the validity of the court’s 1978 judgment 

finding appellant guilty of the offense of theft. The district court denied appellant’s 

petition and appellant has filed a pro se notice of appeal from that order.

The purpose of the writ of error coram nobis is to bring before the court 

rendering the judgment matters of fact which, if known at the time the judgment 
2

was rendered, would have prevented its rendition. Ex parte McKenzie, 115 Tex.

Crim. 315, 29 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930). The Court of Criminal 

Appeals of Texas has long held that the writ has no application in this State. See Ex 

parte Massey, 157 Tex. Crim. 491, 249 S.W.2d 599, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952).

Even if the motion could be construed as a request for habeas corpus relief, 

however, this court would not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Only the 

Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to post-conviction 

relief from a final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 

S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 1991); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. 

art. 11.07; Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for 

Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding 

that article11.07 provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony 

conviction).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jamison.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
[Cite as State v. Faraj, 128 Ohio St.3d 233, 2010-Ohio-6333.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v . F ARAJ , A PPELLANT . [Cite as State v. Faraj, 128 Ohio St.3d 233, 2010-Ohio-6333.] Discretionary appeal accepted and judgment of the court of appeals affirmed on the authority of State v. Hodge. (No. 2010-1679

— Submitted December 14, 2010

— Decided December 29, 2010.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 93491, 2010-Ohio-3719.

__________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of State v. Hodge , 128 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-6320, 941 N.E.2d 768.
P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.
B ROWN , C.J., dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in State v. Hodge.

__________________ William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Pr osecuting Attorney, and T. Allan Regas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Russell S. Bensing, for appellant.

______________________
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40379 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARCO ANTONIO OVALLE-CASTILLO, also known as Francisco Javier Avilla-Valencia, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-845-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Marco Antonio Ovalle-Castillo raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense, and by United States v. GarciaMendez , 420 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006), which held that a Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation was equivalent to burglary of a dwelling. TheNo. 06-40379 -2- Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Order filed, October 18, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00807-CV

____________

DONALD KILPATRICK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSIGNEE OF 

CAUSES OF ACTION OF JEREMY DICKS, Appellant

V.

NOBLE CAPITAL SERVICING, LLC, KAREEM HAJJAR, TRUSTEE, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-31821C

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due August 15, 2016. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Gina Wilburn, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS PART OF
THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,765
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                       967
<INVENTORY>                                    114,828
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               183,588
<PP&E>                                         121,211
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,233
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 250,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,057
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           856
<OTHER-SE>                                     161,096
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   250,111
<SALES>                                        290,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               290,761
<CGS>                                          207,095
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,831
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,556)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,563
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (172)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (69)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (103)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (103)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6902

TYRONE SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-3815-DKC) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Tyrone Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Corcoran , No. CA-98- 3815-DKC (D. Md. June 4, 1999). Furthermore, we deny Appellant’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, for appointment of counsel, and to be furnished transcripts at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                           AGREEMENT TO CONVERT NOTES

         This Agreement is entered into as of the ___day of March 2000, by
and between Training Devices International Inc., a Colorado corporation
("TDI"), and the noteholder whose name appears at the bottom of this
Agreement ("Noteholder").

         WHEREAS, TDI issued Noteholder its promissory note (the "Note")
dated the date set forth at the bottom of this Agreement; and

         WHEREAS, TDI is preparing to file an amendment to its Registration
Statement (the "Registration Statement") for its Initial Public Offering
("IPO"); and

         WHEREAS, the total being raised in the IPO is less than TDI had
originally contemplated; and

         WHEREAS, in order to increase the proceeds from the IPO that TDI
will be able to use for its business, TDI would like the Noteholder to forego
repayment of the Note from the IPO proceeds and convert the Note to common
stock.

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained
herein, and other good and valuable consideration, TDI and Noteholder agree
as follows:

         1. Upon the closing of the IPO of TDI, the Note shall automatically
convert to shares of TDI's common stock. The number of shares to be received
upon conversion of the Note shall equal the principal and accrued interest on
the Note divided by a number that will be equal to 50% of the IPO price to
investors, before underwriters' discounts. The shares received upon this
conversion of the Note are called "Conversion Shares."

         2. TDI shall promptly notify Noteholder of the closing of the IPO.
Noteholder shall deliver the Note to TDI or its transfer agent, and promptly
after such delivery, TDI shall issue the Conversion Shares. The Conversion
Shares will contain a restrictive legend, indicating that the shares have not
been registered with the SEC and can be resold only pursuant to an exemption
from registration or a registration statement under applicable securities
laws. Noteholder is aware that the holding period for the Conversion Shares
shall commence on the Effective Date of the Registration Statement, for the
purposes of SEC Rule 144.

         3. Noteholder agrees that upon conversion of the Note Noteholder
will waive the provisions of paragraph 4 of the Note that provides for
additional cash payments over a five-year period.

         4. If the IPO does not close for any reason, the Note shall remain
outstanding under its original terms.


NOTEHOLDER                             TRAINING DEVICES
                                       INTERNATIONAL INC.

                                       By:
-----------------------------             -----------------------------
< < Name > >                           Its:
                                           ----------------------------

<PAGE>

NOTE PRINCIPAL:  < < $ Amt > >

DATE OF NOTE:  < < Date of Note > >
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 66796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27390]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-73,874]


The Wise Company, Inc. (B&M Seating), 3750 Industrial Drive, 
Carlyle, IL; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 
Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on September 29, 2010, applicable to workers of The Wise Company, Inc., 
Memphis, Tennessee. The notice was published in the Federal Register on 
October 15, 2010 (75 FR 63510).
    At the request of a State workforce official, the Department 
reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The Wise 
Company, Inc. workers are engaged in activities related to the 
production of boat seats.
    New information shows that the Department did not correctly state 
the subject firm location on the certification decision. The correct 
location of the subject firm should read 3750 Industrial Drive, 
Carlyle, Illinois.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to 
correct the location of the subject firm to read 3750 Industrial Drive, 
Carlyle, Illinois.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-73,874 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of The Wise Company, (B & M Seating), 3750 
Industrial Drive, Carlyle, Illinois, who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after April 6, 2009, through 
September 29, 2012, and all workers in the group threatened with 
total or partial separation from employment on the date of 
certification through two years from the date of certification, are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title 
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of October 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-27390 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: The City of Denton v. Randy Turner, Obo Terrill, Turmer a/k/a Terrell 

Turner, deceased, Liz Chavez, Shannon Hodge, Kevin Wong, Scott 

Minnick and Holly Pride, et al.

Appellate case number: 01-23-00051-CV

Trial court case number: 2021-24797

Trial court: 164th District Court of Harris County

On February 9, 2023, Appellant, The City of Denton (“Appellant”), filed an Unopposed 

Motion to Dismiss Appeal with Prejudice (“Motion to Dismiss”). The certificate of service on 

the Motion to Dismiss does not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5. 

Specifically, the certificate of service does not indicate the Motion to Dismiss was served “on all 

parties to the proceeding” and the date and manner of service for all parties. TEX. R. APP. P. 

9.5(a), (e). While the certificate of service attached to the Motion to Dismiss indicates the 

Motion was served “on all counsel of record . . . via electronic transmission,” the attached 

Automated Certificate of eService reflects only that Appellant’s counsel was served.

Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss is struck. The Court will consider a motion to dismiss 

that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy

Acting individually 

Date: February 16, 2023