alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lurton *v.*Carson.

If a motion for a new trial, made on the gr6und that the verdict is unsupported by the evidence, be overruled, and the opinion be excepted to,—the bill of exceptions must show that it contains all the evidence given in the cause.

If the evidence be contradictory, and there be ground for an honest difference of opinion as to the propriety of the verdict, the refusal to grant a new trial is not error.

ERROR to the *Posey*Circuit Court.

*Friday, November*11.

M‘Kinney, J.

Action of trespass and false imprisonment. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

A bill of exceptions was taken to the opinion of the Court, overruling a motion for anew trial. The bill contains the testimony of several witnesses, but does not show that it presents all the testimony given on the trial. This is necessary. If it does not appear, we will, agreeably to the case of *Reno*v. *Crane, May term,*1829, of this Court, presume that the Circuit Court acted correctly. To enable us to sajr, whether the Court below was correct in its refusal to grant a new trial, it is obvious that we should he in possession of all the testimony in the case.

*465
      *Battell*and Hall, for the plaintiff.

Judah, for the defendant.

The testimony presented is contradictory. Exclusive of the defect in the bill of exceptions, we should be unwilling to interfere with this verdict. The verdict of a jury is entitled to great respect. It is their ‘province, in such a case as this, to weigh the testimony. It is with reluctance that a Court would interfere. If there be ground for an honest difference of opinion, the verdict should not be set aside.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed,- with 5 *per cent,*damages and costs.
No. 14,353.

#### Balue *v.*Richardson.

*Pbactice.*— Motions *to Strike Out Pleadings.*— Bill *of Exceptions.*— Motions to strike out pleadings and to separate and number paragraphs of pleading, and the rulings thereon, must be brought into the record by a proper bill of exceptions or be made a part of the record by order of the court.

From the Vigo Superior Court.

*N. G. Buff*and *T. W. Harper,*for appellant.

*G. W. Faris, S. R. Hamill, D. N. Taylor, N. Morris, L. Newberger*and *J. B. Curtis,*for appellee.

Olds, J.

This is an action by the appellee against the appellant. The complaint is-in four paragraphs. The first alleges the sale of certain real estate by appellee to appellant for $3,000, and that as a part of the consideration appellant assumed and agreed to pay certain encumbrances on the property, and that there is due and unpaid $800 of the purchase-money.

The second alleges the same facts, and that appellant failed and refused to pay certain of the encumbrances, and that appellant agreed to pay $196.90 interest and taxes, and $23 for abstracts of said property, and that there is still due and unpaid the sum of $238.20 of the purchase-money.

The third paragraph is for $42 damages sustained by reason of a contract relating to the sale of goods.

The fourth paragraph is for $5 for the one-half interest in a map.

Appellant answered the complaint. The plaintiff then filed a supplemental complaint, alleging that since the commencement of the action plaintiff, the appellee, had paid $546.39 of the liens and encumbrances on said real estate, the payment of which had been assumed by the appellant as part of the consideration of said real estate, as alleged in the original complaint.

*481Filed June 25, 1890.

The appellant then moved the court to strike out the supplemental complaint, which motion was overruled. The appellant then moved the court to require the appellee to separately state and number his causes of action set out in his supplemental complaint, or, as it is stated in the record, “ to paragraph his supplemental complaint,” which motion was overruled, and the appellant then filed his motion to tax costs prior to the filing of the supplemental complaint to the plaintiff, which motion was also overruled.

The appellant excepted to the rulings of the court on the two first motions at the time.

The rulings of the court on these various motions are assigned as error, and are the only errors assigned.

There is no bill of exceptions presenting these various rulings, nor are the motions and rulings thereon made a part of the record; they seem to have been oral motions, and stated no reasons for the motions. Motions ‘to strike out pleadings and to separate and number paragraphs of pleadings, and the rulings thereon, must be brought into the record by a proper bill of exceptions or be made a part of the record by order of the court. *Manhattan Life Ins. Co.*v. *Doll,*80 Ind. 113.

There is no question presented by the record for the decision of this court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS )

LIABILITY LITIGATION, ) 

 )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: )

 )

Angela Voigt, ) MDL Docket No. 15-2641

C.A. No. CV-15-1915-PHX-DGC )

 ) 

 )

Angela Voigt, ) NOTICE

 ) 

 Plaintiff(s), ) 

 ) 

v. )

 )

C R Bard, Inc., et al., )

 )

 Defendant(s) )

 IN THE ABOVE MATTER, you are advised that the case listed 

above (formerly Eastern District of Oklahoma 6:15-cv-239) is 

now consolidated with and part of MDL No. 2641 pursuant to the 

Transfer Order filed September 14, 2015. Therefore, future 

pleadings pertaining to the above case will be filed in MDL-No. 

2641, the title page of these documents should be prepared as shown

above. 

 

September 24, 2015 BRIAN D. KARTH 

 Date DCE/Clerk of Court

 s/M. Pruneau 

 Deputy Clerk 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 91 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 62208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24568]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 
1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Li Ling Hamady, ACA Permit Officer, 
Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fbbab8ba8b9e8996928f88bb95889dd59c948d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c6d6f6d5c495e4145585f6c425f4a024b435a">[email protected]</span></a>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 10, 2014 the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit 
application received. The permit was issued on October 9, 2014 to: Dr. 
Kenneth W. Sims Permit No. 2015-007.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-24568 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8326

BENNIE RISER, a/k/a Bennie James Riser, Jr., Petitioner - Appellant,

v. WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE, McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (8:08-cv-00032-HFF)

Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 26, 2009

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bennie Riser, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bennie Riser seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Riser has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mary W. Edwards,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03767-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9119 Filed 12/05/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 11.1

                               FRESH AMERICA CORP.
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS*
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)

                                                        FISCAL YEAR
                                               ------------------------------
                                                 1994       1995       1996
                                               --------   --------   --------
Net income applicable to common and common
     equivalent shares .....................   $  2,073   $  2,300   $  4,043
                                               ========   ========   ========

Weighted average common shares outstanding .      3,018      3,518      3,625

Effect of stock options and warrants .......        149        152        238
                                               --------   --------   --------
Weighted average common and common
     equivalent shares .....................      3,167      3,670      3,863
                                               ========   ========   ========
Net income per common and common equivalent
     share - fully diluted .................   $   0.65   $   0.63   $   1.05
                                               ========   ========   ========


*  Earnings per share are presented on a fully diluted basis.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-63034, 333-91095 and333-25298) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan and 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Rainmaker Systems, Inc. of our report dated January 26, 2004, with respect to the financial statements and schedule of Rainmaker Systems, Inc. includedin the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

March 18, 2004
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS Case No.: 15-MD-02641-PHX-DGC

LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL NO: 2641

This Document Relates to: 

2:15-CV-0717

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

TO: The Clerk of the court and all parties of record:

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this Court, and I appear in this case 

as counsel for:

Plaintiff Heather Blacketer.

Dated: September 25, 2015.

/s/ Sheila M. Bossier 

Sheila M. Bossier

FREESE & GOSS, PLLC

1520 North State Street

Jackson, MS 39202

Telephone: (601) 961-4050

Facsimile: (601) 352-5452

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 25, 2015, a copy of the foregoing was served 

electronically, and notice of the service of this document will be sent to all parties by operation 

of the Court’s electronic filing system to CM/ECF participants registered to receive service in 

this matter. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.

/s/ Sheila M. Bossier

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 92 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles Jackson,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03571-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Curtis Law Group

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/11/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: October 18, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8236 Filed 10/19/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8236 Filed 10/19/17 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                              BIG CITY RADIO, INC.
 
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED             SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                  JUNE 30,                      JUNE 30,
                                                        ----------------------------  ----------------------------
<S>                                                     <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
                                                            1998           1997           1998           1997
                                                        -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
Net loss..............................................  $  (5,459,000) $  (2,253,000) $  (8,745,000) $  (5,257,000)
                                                        -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
                                                        -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
Weighted average number of shares outstanding--Basic:
 
Weighted average number of shares outstanding.........     13,988,913      9,375,520     13,982,253      9,375,520
                                                        -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
                                                        -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
Net loss per share:
  Basic(a)............................................  $       (0.39) $       (0.24) $       (0.63) $       (0.56)
                                                        -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
                                                        -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
</TABLE>
 
------------------------
 
(a) In calculating diluted earnings per share, no potential shares of common
    stock are to be included in the computation of diluted earnings per share
    when a loss from continuing operations available to common stockholders
    exists. For the three and six months ended June 30, 1998 and 1997, the
    Company had a loss from continuing operations.
#### HARTZ MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIES, INC. v. JOSEPH BONNANO.

July 2, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 25, 2015

No. 04-14-00547-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.S.P., A Child,

From the County Court at Law, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 07-06-4710-CCL

Honorable Vivian Torres, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief is GRANTED. The 

appellant’s reply brief is due on April 30, 2015.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit
      32.1**





HERITAGE
      OAKS BANCORP




Annual
      Report on Form 10K


for
      the
      Year ended December 31, 2006





**CERTIFICATION**





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The
      undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Heritage Oaks Bancorp (the
      “Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, that (i) the
      Annual Report on Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed by
      the
      Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Annual Report”), to
      which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the
      information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.


Date:
              March 1, 2007
            
            /s/
              Lawrence P. WardLawrence
              P. WardPresident
              and
              Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 11.1



                        Computation of Earnings Per Share
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                    Three Months Ended
                                          August 31, 1998     August 31, 1997
                                          ---------------     ---------------
<S>                                         <C>                  <C>
BASIC
-----
Weighted average number of common
shares outstanding                           3,445,085            3,420,036
                                            ----------           ----------

Net income applicable to common shares      $   31,205           $   94,181
                                            ==========           ==========

Basic earnings per share                    $     0.01           $     0.03
                                            ==========           ==========

DILUTED
-------
Weighted average number of common
shares outstanding                           3,445,085            3,420,036

Weighted average incremental
shares from the assumed exercise              
of stock options and warrants                  133,315              164,589
                                            ----------           ----------

                                             3,578,400            3,584,625
                                            ==========           ==========

Net income applicable to common shares 
  and common equivalent shares              $   31,205           $   94,181
                                            ==========           ==========

Diluted earnings per share                  $     0.01           $     0.03
                                            ==========           ==========
</TABLE>
#### IN THE MATTER OF: MICAH STORM DULA, a minor child

No. 266A01

(Filed 9 November 2001)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 143 N.C. App. 16, 544 S.E.2d 591 (2001), reversing and remanding an order entered 10 January 2000 by Jones (Jonathan L.), J., in District Court, Caldwell County. Heard in the Supreme Court 16 October 2001.

*Elizabeth M. Spillman for petitioner-appellee Caldwell County Department of Social Services.*

*Austen D. Judfor respondent-appellant Davida Dula.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.