alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ANGIE S. PETIT, INDIVIDUALLY AND TRADING AS CALIFON TRUCKING CO., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. LOUIS J. FEINS AND ALEXANDER JAMES, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Argued February 6, 1945

Decided April 19, 1945.

For the appellant, *Bernard Shurkin (Stanley*TP. *Green*field, of counsel).

For the respondents, *John C. Grimshaw (David E. Feldman,*of counsel).

Pee Curiam.

This appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court entered against appellant, plaintiff below.

The action was for the recovery of damages growing out of a collision between the automobile trucks of the parties. At the close of’the case counsel for defendant moved for a direction of verdict. The learned trial court in response to this motion reviewed the testimony submitted during the trial and concluded: “On both the question of contributory negligence and on the main ease, the court is .of the opinion that there is nothing upon which the ordinary mind might differ in this case, and I will grant the motion for direction of verdict.” No objection or exception to this ruling was made by plaintiff.

The only ground of appeal is that the court below erred in directing the verdict in favor of defendants as above indicated. But the failure of plaintiff to make objection or exception to the ruling of the trial court leaves this court without any matter for decision. *Sprouls*v. *Quartier,*109 *N. J. L.*191; *Ronkeroni*v. *Public Service Electric Co.,*113 *Id.*405.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

*For affirmance*— Ti-ie Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Case, Bobine, Donges, I-Ieiier, Perskie, Porter, Colie, Wells, Raeeerty, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 14.

*For reversal*— None.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001048275
<NAME>                        PMCC Financial Corp.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  Apr-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                          57
<SECURITIES>                    15,964
<RECEIVABLES>                   2,212
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                21,846
<PP&E>                          1,726
<DEPRECIATION>                  (660)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  22,912
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           16,603
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        10,736
<OTHER-SE>                      (4,427)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    22,912
<SALES>                         4,230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                4,659
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   7,571
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              346
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (3,288)
<INCOME-TAX>                    (52)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (3,236)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (3,236)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.87)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, Eric W. Finlayson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Metalico, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosures controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an Annual Report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.   Date: May 16, 2005                /s/ Eric W. Finlayson             Eric W. Finlayson           Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
9592.

#### Kelley *v.*Jones.

Wade, C. J.

1. Where one of the errors assigned in a petition for certiorari in a case in which evidence was introduced is that the judgment complained of was contrary to evidence, or was without evidence to support it and contrary to law, the petition should set forth the substance of all the evidence introduced; and a statement in the petition that a number of witnesses were examined on both sides, without setting out in substance what they testified, is insufficient, and would unquestionably warrant a refusal by the judge of the superior court *445to sanction the certiorari. *Hayes*v. *Lithonia,*94 *Ga.*552 (20 S. E. 426); *Central of Ga. Ry. Co.*v. *Potter,*120 *Ga.*343 (47 S. E. 924); *Bell*v. *Evans,*19 *Ga. App.*469 (91 S. E. 787). Where, however, the judge of the superior court sanctioned a certiorari ‘to review a judgment of the ordinary, and the ordinary in his answer set out the evidence given on the trial before him, such deficiency in the petition for certiorari was supplied, and at the hearing it was too late to dismiss the petition for this ¡ defect. See, in this - connection, *Taylor*v. *Gay,*20 *Ga.*77; *Taylor*v. *State,*118 *Ga.*50 (44 S. E. 834); *Willims*v. *Mangum,*119 *Ga.*628 (46 S. E. 835); *Horton-Hughes Furniture, Co.*v. *Broad Street Hotel*Co., 22 *Ga. App.*89 (95 S. E. 373).

Decided June 12, 1918.

Certiorari; from Forsyth superior court—Judge Morris. February 20, 1918. •

The petition for certiorari states that upon the hearing of the ease, the court, “after examining a number of witnesses on each side,” passed an order, set out in’the petition; with which judgment the petitioner is dissatisfied, and “he alleges that the same is error and contrary to law, and that the sáme is contrary to evidence and the principles of justice and equity, and that when the evidence given upon said trial shall be correctly reported by the ordinary, it will utterly fail to show that the applicant H. L. Jones had acquired any right to a private way across this petitioner’s land by prescription.” Other allegations of error are made, and it is prayed that a writ of certiorari be granted, requiring the ordinary to send up Copies of the proceedings, together with a report of the evidence given on the trial. The judge of the superior court sanctioned the certiorari, and the ordinary, in his answer to the writ, set out the evidence introduced on the trial. In a subsequent order, on the hearing of the certiorari, the judge revoked his sanction of the certiorari and dismissed it, on the ground that the evidence adduced on the trial before the ordinary was not set out in the petition. To this judgment the petitioner excepted.

*H. L. Patterson,*for plaintiff in error.

*George F, Goler, G. B. Walker, W. I. Heyward,*contra.

2. The judge of the superior court therefore erred in revoking his. previous order sanctioning the certiorari, and in dismissing the same, “upon the ground and for the reason that the evidence adduced upon the trial before the ordinary is not set out and embodied in the petition.”

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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: February 9, 2010
    By:
    /s/ RAYMOND K. GUBARaymond K. GubaExecutive Vice President and 
Chief Financial and Administrative Officer
8959.

#### Western *&*Atlantic Railroad Company *v.*Williams.

Decided April 11, 1918,

Action for damages; from Whitfield superior court—Judge Tarver. May 26, 1917.

*Tye, Peeples & Tye, Maddox, McCamy & Shumate,*for plaintiff in error.. *W. G. Martin, W. E. Mann,*contra.

Luke, J.

1. Where a divorce decree awards the custody of a minor child to the mother, with the privilege of the father to see the Child, and directs that he contribute to the child’s support “as he has been doing,” the father is not relieved from his legal obligation for a proper support of the child. *Brown*v. *Brown,*132 *Ga.*712 (64 S. E. 1092, 131 Am. St. R. 229). He may, as next friend, institute an action against a railroad company for a negligent physical injury to the child. The court, after hearing evidence, did not err in overruling and striking the defendant’s plea in abatement, in which it was contended that by reason of the divorce decree, the father had no right to file the suit as next friend.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, which was based only on general grounds.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, O. J., and JenJcins, J., concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40975

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO ESTRADA-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-328-1

Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Pedro Estrada-Rodriguez 

raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. MoralesMota, 704 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2374 (2013). In 

Morales-Mota, 704 F.3d at 412, this court, relying upon its holding in United 

States v. Joslin, 487 F. App’x 139, 141-43 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished), cert. 

denied, 133 S. Ct. 1847 (2013), rejected the argument that the Texas offense of 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 16, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40975 Document: 00512598111 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2014
No. 13-40975

“burglary of a habitation” is outside the generic, contemporary definition of 

“burglary of a dwelling” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because it defines 

the “owner” of a habitation as a person with a “greater right to possession.” 

Accordingly, Estrada-Rodriguez’s unopposed motion for summary disposition 

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-40975 Document: 00512598111 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2014
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10(j)    
  


Exhibit B  


AMENDED AND RESTATED SECTION 2.8.

OF

CITY NATIONAL CORPORATION 1995 OMNIBUS PLAN  


        2.8    Special Requirements for Director Stock Options.    



        (a)  Eligibility.    All directors of the Company who are not employees of the Company shall be eligible to receive
Director Stock Options, as set forth in this Section 2.8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any director who is, or who during the preceding calendar year was, a member of the Committee or any
committee administering any other stock option, stock appreciation, stock bonus or other stock plan of the Company or any Subsidiary will not be eligible to receive Director Stock Options hereunder
if, in the opinion of counsel for the Company, the receipt of Director Stock Options will cause such director to be a "disinterested person" with respect to the Plan or any other stock option, stock
appreciation, stock bonus or other stock plan of the Company or any subsidiary pursuant to Rule 16b-3 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or will otherwise disqualify the Plan or any
other such Plan from compliance with said rule. 


        (b)  Grant of Director Options.    Every eligible director will receive five hundred (500) Director Stock Options on
the date of each annual meeting of shareholders. Director Stock Options shall be granted automatically to each such eligible director on the business day following such annual meeting of stockholders,
without further action of the Committee or the Board. 


        (c)  Stock Option Price.    The purchase price of the stock pursuant to a Director Stock Option shall be $1.00 per
share. 


        (d)  Other Terms of Director Stock Options.    Each Director Stock Option shall become exercisable six
(6) months after the date of grant. Unless otherwise determined by the Committee, if the holder of Director Stock Options ceases to serve as a director of the Company for any reason other than
for cause, the Director Stock Options shall expire at the end of their fixed term, or three months after the date of such termination, and until then shall be exercisable in full, regardless of any
vesting schedule otherwise applicable. Except as set forth in this Section 2.8, all terms and provisions of the Director Stock Options shall be as set forth in the Plan with respect to options
which are not Director Stock Options. 










QuickLinks


Exhibit 10(j)
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

*CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GraniteCity Food & Brewery Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended March 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven J. Wagenheim, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       the Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 
| Dated: | May 12, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Steven J.  Wagenheim               |   |
|--------|--------------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |         |   | Steven J.  Wagenheim                   |
|   |         |   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Changing Pressure","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"gaqTyzDE9U\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/changing-pressure\/\">Changing Pressure<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/changing-pressure\/embed\/#?secret=gaqTyzDE9U\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Changing Pressure” — NASA\" data-secret=\"gaqTyzDE9U\" 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\/2023\/03\/475568main_ED10-0230-04_full_full.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas December 6, 2022 No. 04-22-00766-CR Matthew Hernandez YANEZ ,

Appellant
v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR10156 Honorable Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R The reporter’s record was due on November 14, 2022. After the due date, on November 28, 2022, court reporter Erminia Uviedo filed a notification of late reporter’s record, requesting until December 20, 2022, to complete the record, and stating that she did not receive notice of the appeal until November 18, 2022. The court reporter’s request is granted . The reporter’s record is due on December 20, 2022.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 6th day of December, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              7,326
<SECURITIES>                                       20,525
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   29,106
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     29,106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               1,048
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                               50
<OTHER-SE>                                         28,008
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       29,106
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    1,861
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         368
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     1,337
<INCOME-TAX>                                          518
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   819
<DISCONTINUED>                                      3,514
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                        4,333
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .88



</TABLE>