alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### R. S. Beck, Etc., *v.*R. H. Gale, Etc.

Deed of Trust for Payment of Debts — Sale by Trustee — Grantor Must Join — Application of tbe Proceeds.

Where the grantor in a deed of trust for the payment of debts joins ' with the trustee in a conveyance the title is vested in the purchaser unincumbered by the claim of creditors, and without responsibility on him or charge on the land for the application of the proceeds of the sale.

APPEAL EROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 19, 1867.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The deed of trust from B. H. Gale and wife to H. B. Gale is not copied in the record, but it is alleged in the petition to have been made on the 24th of September, 1862.

It appears on the face of the petition that H. B. Gale, as trustee with E. Brown, his security, executed bond payable to the grantors in the deed as required by the first section of the act approved March 2, 1860, entitled “ An act requiring trustees, *etc.,*to execute bond in certain cases.” The bond is referred to in the petition and copied in the record. It bears date the 16th day of February, 1863.

*10By the second section of said act it is provided that any person' injured by a breach of the covenant of the bond “ Shall have remedy for the recovery of damages by appropriate action thereon in any court’having jurisdiction thereof.”

The twenty-fourth section of chapter 80 of the Revised Statutes (Stanton’s ed., vol. 2), page 230, provides that,

> “No sale made of any property by a trustee, by virtue of a deed of trust or pledge to secure the payment of debts shall be valid, nor shall the conveyance by such trustee pass the title of the property specified in such deed or pledge, unless the sale thereof shall be in pursuance to a decree or order of a court, or the maker of such deed or pledge shall join in a writing evidencing the sale.”

But, as appears both by the averments of the petition and the deed exhibited and copied in the record, said R. H. Gale and Mary C. Gale, his wife, the grantors in the deed of trust united with the trustee, H. B. Gale, in the sale of the tract of 113 acres of land (misdescribed as 350 acres), at the price of *$1^,520,*and conveyed it to appellant on the 2d day of May, 1863.

It seems to us this sale and conveyance vested the title in the purchaser unincumbered by the claims of creditors, and without responsibility on him or charge on the land for the application of the proceeds of the sale, and, as the object of the petition was to compel a settlement of the trustee’s accounts and a proper application of the funds in his hands for the relief of appellant from a supposed charge on the land or liability for the application of its proceeds, the demurrer to the petition was properly sustained.

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000892449
<NAME> FIRST COMMUNITY FINANCIAL GROUP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,395
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             100
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                17,705
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     34,315
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             677
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               733
<LOANS>                                        200,869
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,396
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 288,827
<DEPOSITS>                                     251,844
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,962
<LONG-TERM>                                      2,714
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,350
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 288,827
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,737
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  517
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    46
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,300
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,704
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,749
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,551
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      120
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,502
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    999
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         999
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       674
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.12
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,027
<LOANS-PAST>                                       121
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,290
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       36
<RECOVERIES>                                        22
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,396
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,396
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
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 of Medina International Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending April 30 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I,
Rao Mankal, CFO of the company,  certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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.


                                         /s/ Rao Mankal
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Rao Mankal,  CFO

Dated:  August 1, 2006
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11.1

                        REDHOOK ALE BREWERY, INCORPORATED

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED        NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                        SEPTEMBER 30,            SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                                  -----------------------   -----------------------
                                                                                     1996         1995         1996         1995
                                                                                  ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------

<S>                                                                              <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>      
Primary and fully-diluted earnings per common share:
  Weighted average common shares outstanding ..................................    7,685,312    5,257,787    7,684,855    4,121,688

  Weighted average common stock equivalents outstanding:
    Series A convertible redeemable preferred stock ...........................         --        715,994         --      1,065,306
    Series B convertible redeemable preferred stock ...........................    1,289,872    1,289,872    1,289,872    1,289,872
    Stock options, net ........................................................      166,574      223,612      171,500      146,813

  Net effect of issuance of common stock and Series B preferred stock and the
    granting of stock options during the 12-month period prior to the offering
    at less than the offering price, calculated using the treasury stock method
    at the offering price, and treated as outstanding .........................         --         33,183         --         26,547
                                                                                  ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------


Average number of common
    and equivalent shares outstanding .........................................    9,141,758    7,520,448    9,146,227    6,650,226
                                                                                  ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========

Net income ....................................................................   $  887,171   $  869,276   $2,938,443   $2,065,239
                                                                                  ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========

Earnings per share ............................................................   $     0.10   $     0.12   $     0.32   $     0.31
                                                                                  ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========
</TABLE>
i i i i i i



## MEM ORA ND UM OP INION N o. 04
- 09
- 00 05 5- CR EX PAR TE M A R TI N J U D E RO D R I GU EZ F rom t he C ri m i nal D i st ri ct C ou rt , M agi st rat e C ou rt , Bex ar C ou nty , T ex as

Tri a l Cour t N o. 2006
- W
- 0282 H onor a bl e A ndr e w Ca r r ut he r s , J udg e Pre s i di ng 

### PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: April 8, 2009 DI SMI SSED On Marc h 1 7, 20 09 , a

pp e lla nt f ile d a mot ion to w ith dr a w hi s app eal
. Th e mot ion is G RA NT ED , and the a

ppeal is dismissed. See T EX 

### . R. A PP 

### . P. 42.2(a).

PER C URI AM

DO NO T PU B L I SH
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

—————————————————

IN RE GEORGE MILAM HALL, doing 

business as The Alamo,

 Debtor.

__________________________________

GEORGE MILAM HALL,

 Appellant,

 v.

ERIC C. RAJALA, Trustee, DAVID R. 

KLAASSEN, and GREAT SOUTHERN 

BANK,

 Appellees. 

BAP No. KS-10-037

Bankr. No. 06-40872 

Chapter 12 

ORDER TRANSFERRING 

APPEAL

TO U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

June 10, 2010 

—————————————————

The matter before the Court is the Election (“Election”) filed by David R. 

Klaassen (“Appellee”). In the Election, Appellee has timely filed an objection to the 

disposition of this matter by this Court.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(e), it is HEREBY 

ORDERED that:

(1) This appeal is transferred to the United States District Court.

BAP Appeal No. 10-37 Docket No. 7 Filed: 06/10/2010 Page: 1 of 2
2

(2) Any deadlines, notices of deficiency, or orders to show cause 

previously set by this Court are VACATED.

(3) This Court’s record is transmitted to the United States Bankruptcy 

Court.

For the Panel: 

Barbara A. Schermerhorn, Clerk of Court

By:

Gregory Wright

Deputy Clerk

BAP Appeal No. 10-37 Docket No. 7 Filed: 06/10/2010 Page: 2 of 2
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

VINCENTE JIMENEZ
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 1343

[ October 14, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Robert E. Belanger , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2017CF003175A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, Assistant Attorney Ge neral, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

The defendant raises four issues on appeal, only one of which has merit. We affirm his conviction for aggravated battery and his sentence, but we agree that his judgment improperly includes the words “ PR IOR

CONVICTION ” in the description of the crime and improperly references section 784.03(2), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to correct the judgment by removing these references. The defendant need not be present for the entr y of the corrected judgment.

We affirm with respect to the remaining issues.

Remanded with instructions

.

C IKLIN
, F ORST and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
NASA Advisory Council Recommendation 

Coordination of Education and Public Outreach Activities 

2013-02-07 (EPOC-Ol) 

Recommendation: 


NASA should learn from the approval process begun during sequestration and develop a 


new process for dispositioning requests to conduct Education and Public Outreach (EPO) 


activities that efficiently coordinates with missions, aligns EPO programs with NASA 


goals, and is cost-effective. 


Major Reasons for Proposing the Recommendation: 


Fragmented or non-aligned EPO activities dilute the effectiveness and reach ofthese 


programs, and undennine NASA's overall strategic EPO objectives. 


Consequences of No Action on the Proposed Recommendation: 


Continuing development of duplicative and potentially inefficient EPO programs that are 


not aligned with the Agency's strategic priorities make the cost-benefits harder to 


evaluate and defend. 


NASA Response: 


NASA concurs with the recommendation. The Office ofCommunications and the Office 


of Education are currently in the process of developing an approach and guidance 


regarding approval ofEPO activities under sequestration in FY 2014. The approach will 


be developed and implemented in partnership with the Mission Directorates through their 


representatives on the Education Coordinating Council and Communications 


Coordinating Council. While the Office ofCommunications and the Office ofEducation 


recognize that the approach in FY 2013 entailed significant effort and coordination, the 


outcome yielded significant insights that led to several efforts devoted to improving 


processes and approaches which we believe will result in more effective communications 


and engagement with stakeholders. 


Enclosure
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10086 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KENNETH EJIOUGU MBAH, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CR-277-X

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Ejiogu Mbah (Mbah) appeals his sentence for wire fraud, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Mbah argues that the district court erred in calculating the amount of loss under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1). The district court did not clearly err in determining that the amount of loss exceeded $350,000. See United States v. Montano-Silva , 15 F.3d 52, 54 (5th Cir. 1994).No. 96-10086 - 2 - AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Thomas J. Sullivan, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No.1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Symmetry Surgical Inc.; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|August 10, 2015 |                        
|--------------- | -----------------------
|                | /s/ Thomas J. Sullivan 
|                | Thomas J. Sullivan     
|                | Chief Executive Officer
* 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-11189 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOHN WAYNE WASHINGTON Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-21-ALL Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent John Wayne Washington has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with A nders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Washington has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Washington’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave towithdrawis GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. Washington’s United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 19, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-11189

2 motions for the appointment of new counsel or to proceed pro se on appeal are DENIED.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSE CRUZ.

November 10, 1986.

Petition for certification granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the Appellate Division for reconsideration in light of *State v. Harmon,*104 *N.J.*189 (1986) and *State v. Crisantos*(Arriagas), 102 *N.J.*265 (1986). Jurisdiction is not retained.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27543]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5415-N-20]


Notice of Availability: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for 
HUD's Fiscal Year 2010 Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency 
(ROSS)--Service Coordinators Program

AGENCY: Office of the Chief of the Human Capital Officer, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the 
applicant information, submission deadlines, funding criteria, and 
other requirements for HUD's Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Resident Opportunity 
and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) Service Coordinators Program. The ROSS 
Service Coordinator NOFA makes available approximately $35 million 
under the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2010. The purpose of the ROSS 
Service Coordinators program is to provide grants to public housing 
agencies (PHAs), tribes/tribally designated housing entities (TDHEs), 
Resident Associations (RAs), and nonprofit organizations (including 
grassroots, faith-based and other community-based organizations) for 
the provision of a Service Coordinator to coordinate supportive 
services and other activities designed to help Public and Indian 
housing residents attain economic and housing self-sufficiency.
    The notice providing information regarding the application process, 
funding criteria and eligibility requirements can be found using the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development agency link on the 
Grants.gov/Find Web site at http://www.grants.gov/search/agency.do. A 
link to Grants.gov is also available on the HUD Web site at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm. The Catalogue of Federal 
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for the ROSS Service Coordinator 
Program is 14.870. Applications must be submitted electronically 
through Grants.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding specific program 
requirements should be directed to the agency contact identified in the 
program NOFA. Program staff will not be available to provide guidance 
on how to prepare the application. Questions regarding the 2010 General 
Section should be directed to the Office of Grants Management and 
Oversight at (202) 708-0667 or the NOFA Information Center at 800-HUD-
8929 (toll free). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access 
these numbers via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service 
at 800-877-8339.

    Dated: October 27, 2010.
Barbara S. Dorf,
Director, Office of Departmental Grants Management and Oversight, 
Office of the Chief of the Human Capital Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-27543 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
#### The State *v.*Deputy.—In error.

*Wednesday, May 22*

AN indictment for usury, under the statute of 1833, charged that the defendant on, &c. at, &c. *received*from one *A. B.*the sum of 176 dollars for the loan, use, forbearance, and giving day of payment, of the sum of 200 dollars lent and advanced by the defendant to the said *A. B.,*from the 20th *92*of December,*1834, until the 9th of *June,*1836 ; which sum ¿0]]ars so *received,*&c. exceeds the rate of 10 dollars f°r the forbearance for one year a large sum, viz., &c. (1).

*Held,*that this description of the offence was sufficient.

(1)

 So much of the former statute regulating interest, &c. as allowed a higher rate than six *per cent, per annum*to be contracted for, is now repealed. Acts of 1842, p. 91.
#### In re David Hall CRUM, Petitioner.

No. 03-7092.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 28, 2003.

Decided Sept. 10, 2003.

David Hall Cram, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

David Hall Cram petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed in taking action in two petitions for writ of habeas corpus Crum filed in May 2003. Crum seeks an order from this court directing the district court to issue show cause orders in these actions. However, because we find no unreasonable delay, we deny Crum’s request for mandamus relief. Crum’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*