alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fo urth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 13, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00380

- CV

Leola STUART

, Appellant

v.

Estelita JUDSON

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 391869 Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Pre siding



### O R D E R

On March 26 , 2014 , appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s March 20,

2014 judgment. 1 On March 26 , 2014

, with the notice of appeal, appellant filed in the trial court an affidavit of inability to pay costs for appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(a), (c)(1). Pursuant to Rule 20.1(e), the clerk, court reporter , or any party was entitled to challenge appellant’s claim of indigenc e by filing a contest in the trial court within ten days after the date the affidavit w as filed in the trial court, i.e., April 7, 2014. Id. R. 20.1(e). However, the re is nothing in the clerk’s

record to indicate a contest was filed. I n the absence of any contest, the allegations in the affidavit are deemed true and appellant is permitted to proceed without payment of costs, including payment for the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Id. at R. 20 (f).

The reporter’s record was due in thi s court on May 19, 2014, but was not filed. On June 2, 2014, we notified the court reporter, Liche Cavazos, that the record was overdue. We advised to file a notification of late record within ten days of the date of the letter, or file the record

within thirty days of the date of the letter. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(a).

On June 9, 2014, the court reporter filed a notification of late record in which she stated the record had not been filed because appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying th e fee and has failed to pay the fee for preparing the record. Based on the foregoing, this is an improper reason for failing to file the record. As noted above, appellant filed an affidavit of

1 The district clerk did not forward the notice of appeal to this court until May 29, 2014.inability to pay costs and it was not challenged. Accordingl y, we presume appellant is indigent;

appellant is entitled to the record without payment of costs.

We therefore ORDER the court reporter, Liche Cavazo s , to file the reporter’s record in

this court on or before July 14, 2014

. We re mind the reporter appellant is entitled to the record without payment for same.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all parties, all counsel, and the court reporter.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 13th day of June, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Francis M. Taylor *v.*Sallie Crawdus.

Dower — Right of — Husband and Wife.

Where the wife' has given a relinquishment of her right of dower, though the commissoiner, when -selling the land, proclaimed that the wife had a potential right of dower in it, this would not have the effect of restoring her right.

APPEAL PROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

June 21, 1871.

*Harrison, for appellant.*

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The principal question in this case was settled in that of *Cantrill vs. Riske, 7 Bush, 160,*in which the wife of a grantor was held to be bound by her relinquishment of dower in a deed, which was not avoided for- actual fraud, but construed to operate, under the act of. 1856, as an assignment of the grantor’s property for the benefit of creditors. The fact that the commissioner or his auctioneer, when selling the 71 acres of land, proclaimed that the appellant had a potential right of dower in it, under a misapprehension of the law, might perhaps, have been a ground for setting the sale aside at the instance of creditors, if their rights were thereby prejudicial; but it did not have the effect of restoring to the appellee her right of dower in the land *(Burton vs. Robinson, decided December 8, 1870).*

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a judgment in conformity with this opinion.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 23








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
Marisa Christina Incorporated:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
33-91708 and 33-91080) on Form S-8 of Marisa Christina, Incorporated of our
report dated March 3, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Marisa Christina, Incorporated and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1998
and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income
(loss), stockholders' equity, and cash flows and related schedule for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report appears
in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Marisa Christina,
Incorporated.



KPMG LLP


New York, New York
March 25, 1999


                                       48
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Leslie Hollingsworth, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-16-00080-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(“Petition”). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 

22) recommending that the Petition be denied. 

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby 

accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district 

courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 

subject of an objection” (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review 

the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but 

not otherwise” (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 

1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

22) is ACCEPTED; accordingly, 

Case 2:16-cv-00080-JAT Document 23 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

$ Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed 

with prejudice, 

$ in the event Petitioner files an appeal, issuance of a certificate of 

appealability is denied because denial of the petition is based on a plain 

procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find this Court’s procedural 

ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), and 

$ the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice. 

Dated this 23rd day of November, 2016. 

 

Case 2:16-cv-00080-JAT Document 23 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Citizens Bancorp (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, William V. Humphreys, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Lark E. Wysham, Chief Financial Officer, each 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 result of operations of the
Company.

|                                                                                                     | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/  William V. Humphreys

William V. Humphreys
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 9, 2002
|                                                                                                    
|/s/  Lark E. Wysham

Lark E. Wysham
Chief Financial Officer
August 9, 2002                          

15
8305.

#### Morrison, adm’r, *et al. v.*Slaton, Governor, for use, etc.

Decided September 17, 1918.

Action upon bond; from Richmond superior court—Judge IT. C. Hammond. August 8, 1916.

*William PL. Fleming, Bryan Gumming, Barrett & Hull,*for plaintiffs in error. *Callaway & Howard,*contra.

Jenkins, J.

This case was formerly passed upon *by*the. Supreme Court, and is reported in 144 *Ga.*471 (87 S. E. 390). There it was held that the suit was upon the official bond of the sheriff, and set forth a cause of action. Upon the second trial in the court below a verdict was directed against each of the defendants. Upon its being thén brought here for review, on exceptions to the overruling of their motion for a new trial, certain questions of law involved in the record were certified by this court to the Supreme Court. In view of the instructions of that court (148 Ga. 294, 96 S. E. 422), it is now held by'this court that as to- H. C. Morrison, administrator de bonis non of Mary E. O’Connor, the plaintiff’s petition set forth no cause of action; and as to him the judgment of the court below is reversed. As to the other defendant, the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, the judgment is affirmed, with direction that the amount recovered by the plaintiff be reduced by calculating and including interest only from October 2, 1911, on which date an administrator was appointed upon the estate of J. P. Wilde.

*Judgment reversed in part, and affirmed in part, with direction.*

*Wade, G. J., and Luloe, J., concur.*
Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3








---

Exhibit 99.3
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 4.6    
  


        The
Trust Deed of the Barclays Group Share Incentive Plan has been incorporated by reference to the 2001 Form 20-F filed with the SEC on March 22, 2002. 









QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.6
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7527

DARNELL JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS LAWSON; HAROLD A. BLACK; WARDEN OF THE

AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-95-1025-R)

Submitted: December 19, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darnell Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* We gather from Appellant's notice of appeal and informal

brief to this court that he believes that those documents have

begun the exhaustion process. In order to satisfy the exhaustion

requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c), Appellant must initiate a

separate proceeding in state court.

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Jones v. Lawson, No. CA-95-1025-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 19, 1995).* 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
*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.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30792

Summary Calendar

__________________

ERIC TREADAWAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JACK STEPHENS,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(94-CV-3973-R)

______________________________________________

March 14 1996

Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eric Treadaway, a Louisiana state prisoner, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights complaint for failure to prosecute.

Finding that the district court erred in dismissing the suit with

prejudice, we reverse and remand.

A district court's dismissal of a complaint with prejudice may

be affirmed only if (1) there is a clear record of delay or

contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, and (2) either the district
1 Additionally, Treadaway filed objections to the magistrate

judge's report and recommendation, arguing that he could not comply

with the court's order of February 8 until after discovery had been

completed. He asserted that he had so informed the court by

letter. The letter, however, is not in the record.

court has expressly determined that lesser sanctions would not

prompt diligent prosecution or the record shows that the district

court employed lesser sanctions that proved to be futile. Berry v.

CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992). A clear

record of delay is found where there have been "significant periods

of total inactivity." Morris v. Ocean Systems, 730 F.2d 248, 252

(5th Cir. 1984).

The district court made no express findings on the efficacy of

lesser sanctions for Treadaway's failure to comply with the

magistrate judge's orders. Further, there is not a clear record of

delay in this case. Treadaway did fail to comply with the order to

file the pretrial documents and the order to show cause why the

suit should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Nevertheless, in general, "where a plaintiff has failed only to

comply with a few court orders or rules, we have held that the

district court abused its discretion in dismissing the suit with

prejudice." Berry, 975 F.2d at 1191 n.6. 

Moreover, Treadaway did later respond, asserting that he had

been placed in isolation for disciplinary reasons and that he was

not allowed any incoming or outgoing mail during that time.1

Treadaway's conduct does not appear sufficiently egregious to

warrant dismissal of his complaint with prejudice, rendering the

district court's dismissal under the circumstances of this case an

abuse of discretion. We REVERSE and REMAND for further
3

proceedings.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Student Business Competition Gets Boost by White House Initiative","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"PwXBeZtshI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-student-business-competition-gets-boost-by-white-house-initiative\/\">NASA Student Business Competition Gets Boost by White House Initiative<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-student-business-competition-gets-boost-by-white-house-initiative\/embed\/#?secret=PwXBeZtshI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Student Business Competition Gets Boost by White House Initiative” — NASA\" data-secret=\"PwXBeZtshI\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/jsc2019e014444.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
CELSION      -------------------------------------------------------------------
             CELSION CORPORATION             T 410.290.5390  www.celsion.com
             10220-I, Old Columbia Road      T 800.262.0394  celsion@celsion.com
             Columbia MD 21046-1785          F 410.290.5394




February 1, 2003

Dr. Alan J. Fenn
4 Sherman Bridge Rd
Wayland, MA 01778

RE: Compensation for Consultant work in the Area of Intellectual Properties (IP)

Dear Dr. Fenn:

Celsion Corporation is pleased to issue 50,000 shares of its common stock to
your for your efforts in several new IP filings assigned to Celsion Corporation.

Sincerely,

/s/Augustine Y. Cheung

Augustine Y. Cheung
CEO and President
9403.

#### DANIEL, administrator, *v.*JOHNSON *et al.*

The question as to the title to the property levied upon was one of fact for the jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the claimant. The verdict was authorized by the evidence and approved by the trial judge, and this court will not interfere.

Decided May 16, 1918.

Claim; from city court of LaGrange—Judge Moon. November 3, 1917.

*M. U: Mooty,*for plaintiff. *B. A.*Jones,-contra.

Harwell, J.

An execution in favor of *W.*K. Daniel, administrator, against G. *W.*Tatum, was levied on “40 acres in cotton, *380. . .15 acres in corn,” two mules, a wagon, and other personal property, as the property of the defendant, and a claim to the property was filed by C. W. Johnson. On the trial of the ease the claimant testified, that he *“*owned the land and stock and everything- used on the farm, and furnished the rations and all the supplies used on the farm” in' making the corn and cotton levied'on, and Elijah and Clarence Tatum worked the farm for him under a verbal contract that it all belonged to him until payment of all that they owed him; that the defendant G. *W.*Tatum had nothing to do with it; that the claimant bought and owned the two mules and the wagon levied on, and that they were in the possession of Clarence and-, Elijah Tatum, and belonged to the claimant at the time of the levy. He further testified: “I bought the land G. *W.*Tatum lives on from him; that is, he bought the land and couldn’t pay for it and I took up the papers on it. I got the deed from George Tatum, and he got it from Mrs. Dora Hudson, and I paid the money off to her. She deeded it to G. *W.*Tatum and- he deeded it to me to secure the purchase-money.. I gave him a bond for title.” The bond for title was introduced in evidence, and showed a transfer from G. W. Tatum to C. W. Johnson, reciting: “I hereby transfer, assign, and relinquish, all of my rights and interest in said lands for which this bond is given.” Johnson further testified: “I changed my account in 1915 from George Tatum to' his children [Clarence and Elijah], because his boys were dissatisfied with the way their father was managing and working the farm, and they thought they could make more stuff to manage -it than he could; and I told them it would be perfectly all right, that all they had to do was to carry out their daddy’s contract.” The levy, being on corn and cotton in the field, and being dated October 6, 1916, was evidently on the 1916 crop. The plaintiff offered ño evidence, and no other witness than the claimant testified in the case. The bond for title, with the transfer thereon, was the only documentary evidence introduced. 'The jury returned a verdict finding the property not subject. A motion for a new trial, based on the usual general grounds, was overruled, and fhe plaintiff excepted.

It is not necessary to add anything further to what is stated in the headnote.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur*
9332.

#### Goode *v.*Powell.

Decided April 12, 1918.

Certiorari; from Pulton superior court—Judge Bell. October 15, 1917.

*Munday & Cornwell,*for plaintiff in error.

*James B. Warren,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. It is never reversible error for a judge to refuse to direet a verdict. *Stewart*v. *Attaway,*18 *Ga. App,*158 (88 S. E. 992); *Cunningham,*v. *Waters,*142 *Ga.*115 (82 S. E. 518).

2. No complaint is made of any ruling on the admission or rejection of evidence, and no error in the charge is alleged. The jury passed upoh the facts; the judge presiding in the superior court overruled the certiorari and thjs court will not interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P- J-i and Harwell, J., concur.*