alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9145.

#### Freeman *v.*Petty.

Bloodworth, J.

1. When considered in connection with the entire charge, the excerpts therefrom complained of in the motion for a new trial contained no error harmful to the plaintiff in error.

2. The court did not err in failing in its charge to define "the words" “express warranty” and “express contract of warranty,” no proper and timely written request therefor having been made. *Wakefield v. Lee,**20018 *Ga. App.*648 (4) (90 S. E. 224); *Western Union Telegraph Co.*v. *Ford,*10 *Ga. App.*606 (5) (74 S. E. 70); *Pye*v. *Pye,*133 *Ga.*246 (3) (65 S. E. 424); *Georgia Southern & Florida Ry. Co.*v. *Young Investment Co.,*119 *Ga.*513 (2) (46 S. E. 644).

Decided April 11, 1918.

Complaint; from Cordon superior court—Judge Tarver. June 30, 1917.

. *Starr & Paschall,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. Noel Steed, Lang & Lang,*contra.

3. Where jurors were actually selected and empaneled to try -a case, and remarks were made by the trial judge to counsel in the hearing of the jurors, which counsel contend were of such a character as to prejudice the minds of the jurors hearing them against the cause of their client, a motion should have been made to have a mistrial declared, and upon the judge’s refusal to grant it his ruling would have been subject to review. Counsel having failed to make such a motion, and having, without objection, proceeded with the trial, can not, after verdict, raise a question as to the prejudicial nature of the remarks complained of in motion for a new trial. *Rogers*v. *State,*18 *Ga. App.*332 (89 S. E. 460); *Perdue*v. *State,*135 *Ga.*277 (69 S. E. 184).

4. No error was committed in refusing to give to the jury the instruction referred to in the last ground of the motion for a new trial. Even where it is proper to charge on the subject'of expense incurred in complying with the contract, and such a charge is requested, it must he correct and it must appear that the expense was “necessary.” Civil Code (1910), § 4402; *Coweta Falls Mfg. Co.*v. *Rogers,*19 *Ga.*416 (2) (65 Am. D. 602); *Bryan*v. *Southwestern Railroad Co.,*41 *Ga.*71 (3).

5. The evidence was sufficient to support.the verdict.

*Judgment -affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.*
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHANDRAMA MISHRA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SAMUEL S. STARTTON VA MEDICAL

CENTER; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-35719

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00561-MJP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Marsha J. Pechman, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 21, 2015** 

Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Chandrama Mishra appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging a claim related

to his appointment and pay for a position with the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

FILED

JUL 30 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mangano v.

United States, 529 F.3d 1243, 1245 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Mishra’s action because it is precluded

by the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”). See id. at 1247-48 (CSRA limits

federal employees challenging “prohibited personnel practices,” defined as any

“personnel action” taken for an improper motive, to an administrative remedial

system (citing 5 U.S.C. § 2302)); Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 834 (9th Cir.

1991) (broadly construing the definition of “personnel action”). 

The district court properly denied Mishra’s motion for default judgment

because defendants filed a timely response to his complaint. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(a)(2), (3), and (4); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986)

(setting forth standard of review).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-35719
EXHIBIT 32



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 filing of the quarterly report of Ambient Corporation (the Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the "Report") the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to such officers knowledge, that:

(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 Registrant.



|                         |     |                                                                                                     
|------------------------ | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |     |                                                                                                     
|                         |     |                                                                                                     
|Dated: November 14, 2007 | By: | /s/ John J. Joyce                                                                                   
|                         |     | John J. Joyce                                                                                       
|                         |     | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 23.4
 
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form N-2 (File No. 333-236415) of Prospect Capital Corporation of our report dated August 21, 2020, relating to the consolidated financial statements of First Tower Company LLC and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2019 and 2018 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2019, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Prospect Capital Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2020.
 
 We also consent to the reference to our firm under the heading “Independent Accounting Firms” in such registration statement.
 
 /s/ RSM US, LLPRaleigh, North CarolinaAugust 26, 2020
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**Certificateof the Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection withthe quarterly report of Xponential, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A(Amendment No. 1) for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RobertW. Schleizer, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:   December 22, 2003 |   | /s/ Robert W. Schleizer                               |
|--------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                           |   | Robert W. Schleizer                                   |
|                           |   | Executive Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6953

DANNY MCCOY MILES, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. TAYLOR, Doctor at Western Tidewater Regional Jail; MRS. 

DARDEN, Head of Medical at Western Tidewater Regional Jail,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:16-cv-00602-LMB-JFA)

Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danny McCoy Miles, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Danny McCoy Miles, Jr. appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Miles v. Taylor, No. 1:16-cv-00602-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. 

July 6, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lee Mohon","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lee-a-mohonnasa-gov\/","title":"Space Launch System Exploration Upper Stage (EUS)","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dBBXPDjRRB\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/reference\/space-launch-system-exploration-upper-stage-eus\/\">Space Launch System Exploration Upper Stage (EUS)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/reference\/space-launch-system-exploration-upper-stage-eus\/embed\/#?secret=dBBXPDjRRB\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Space Launch System Exploration Upper Stage (EUS)” — NASA\" data-secret=\"dBBXPDjRRB\" 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\/07\/eus_boeing_tilt_bot_r3_with_callouts_1.png?w=320","thumbnail_width":320,"thumbnail_height":401}
#### Parker & Hudson *v.*The Commowealth.

Appeal — Error in Refusing a Continuance.

The appellate court, under section 334, Criminal Code, has no power to reverse a judgment of conviction in a prosecution for felony, because of error by the court below in refusing a continuance.

Same — Instructions—Reasonable Doubt.

An instruction by the court on reasonable doubt, which calls the attention of the jury to the consequences resulting from acquittal upon mere light and technical doubts, not growing out of the evidence, does not in itself authorize a reversal.

APPEAL EROM CALDWELL CIRCUIT COURT.

May 8, 1871.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Lindsey:

This court having no power, under section 334 of the Criminal Code, to reverse a judgment of conviction in a prosecution for felony, because of error by the court below in refusing a continuance, it is not necessary that we should inquire into the sufficiency of the affidavits upon which the appellants based their motion.

The instructions given at the instance of the appellants were certainly as favorable to them as the law and facts warranted, *598and were sufficient to so far qualify those given for the Commonwealth, as to bring them' within the stricter construction of the rules of criminal procedure. We see no objection to the definition given by the circuit court to the term “reasonable doubt,” and whilst it may be questionable as to whether the court should, as was done in the case ¡of Graham, 16 B. Mon. 592, in addition to such definition,-call the attention of the jury to the consequences resulting from acquittals upon mere light and technical doubts not growing out of the evidence. That fact of itself does not authorize a reversal by this court. Instruction No. 6, asked for by appellants, was properly refused. It is not only abstract, but it assumes as true the important fact that there was no evidence before the jury even tending to corroborate the testimony of the witness, who testified as to statements or threats previously made by the appellant, Parker.

Duvall, *for appellant.*

Rodman, *for appellee.*

Perceiving no available error in the action of the court below, and having no power to reverse on account of the verdict -ot being supported by sufficient evidence, we must affirm the judgment appealed from.
#### Bigstaff *v.*State.

Opinion delivered July 14, 1930.

*Hal L. Norwood,*Attorney G-eneral, and *Robert F. Smith,*Assistant, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Mary Bigstaff prosecutes this appeal to reverse a judgment of manslaughter against her in which the jury fixed her punishment at two years in the State penitentiary. According to the evidence adduced by the State, Mary Bigstaff killed Homer Parker on October 6, 1929, in Pike County, Arkansas, by shooting him with a pistol. Mary Bigstaff and Homer Parker had lived together for some time but were not living together at the time of the killing. According to a witness who was present, the defendant commenced shooting the deceased and fired two shots in his body without any cause whatever. Witness stated that Homer Parker was his uncle and that he was not drinking on the evening that he was killed.

A physician who examined the body of the deceased testified that he found two wounds on the body, either one of which would have caused death.

According to the testimony of the defendant, Homer Parker and his nephew came to her house drunk and threatened to break into the house and stomp her to death. Witness had an automatic pistol and fired through the screen to scare Parker and to keep him from killing her with a rock. In short, she testified to a state of case which showed that she shot the deceased in self-defense. *175She stated that Parker and his companion were both drunk.

Both the State and the defendant introduced evidence tending to show that the defendant and the deceased had, on different occasions prior to the night of the killing, each made threats against the life of the other. The evidence for the .State was sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty.

The next assignment for a reversal of the judgment is that the court erred in permitting the introduction of a steel jacket bullet with which the deceased was killed because this varied from the indictment which alleged that the deceased was killed by a leaden bullet. There was no merit in this contention. *Vaden*v. *State,*174 Ark. 950, 298 S. W. 323.

The appellant has not filed any brief, but the record shows that the case was tried upon competent evidence and that -the instructions given by the court fully and fairly covered the theory of the defendant as to the killing. We have carefully examined the record and find no prejudicial error in it. The judgment is therefore affirmed.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm:

Street address: 

City/State/Zip:

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel are you 

a

Federal Defender

CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this ourt an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this ourt’s

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 . . §1746, this

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Wytonya Byrd v. Robert L. Wilkie 20-CV-02579

Wytonya Byrd

Lee B. Muench

Dentons US LLP

233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5900

Chicago, IL 60606

6305846 312-876-8000

lee.muench@dentons.com

September 15, 2020

Ï

Ï

Ï

Ï

Lee B. Muench

Case: 1:20-cv-02579 Document #: 13 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:211
9261.

#### Stacer, administratrix, *v.*Ehrlich.

Decided May 14, 1918.

Complaint; from city court of Swainsboro—Judge Kirkland. August 39, 1917.

*F. H. Saffold,*for plaintiff in error. *T. N. Brown,*for defendant.

Jenkins, J.

Where one deliberately sign's a promissory note for a stated sum, without informing himself, as to the correctness of the amount named, but relies upon the promise of the other party to the contract that it would be revised so as to correct errors, the maker will not be heard to contradict the written instrument by setting up such parol understanding in opposition thereto. The terms of the writing can not be defeated upon the ground of mistake made at the time the instrument was executed, when it thus appears that it was not even the intention of the signer that the settlement was to be accurate and final, but that under an oral agreement the terms of the instrument were to be varied and revised according to the true .state of facts that might thereafter appear. *Wilson*v. *Bush,*22 *Ga. App.*83 (95 S. E. 317); *Dyar*v. *Walton,*79 *Ga.*466 (7 S. E. 220); *Brack*v. *Brantley Co.,*134 *Ga.*495 (67 S. E. 1128). Applying this rule to the allegations of the defendants’ plea in this case;j the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer thereto.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
##### 



Exhibit 32.3  Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Tarpon Coast Bancorp, Inc., the
undersigned hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that this report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: May 6, 2005
    
    /s/ George E. ClineGeorge E. ClineChief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to Tarpon Coast Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Tarpon Coast Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
{"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 TV Coverage Set for Orbital ATK Resupply Mission to Space Station","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7BLGwmHV66\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-tv-coverage-set-for-orbital-atk-resupply-mission-to-space-station-2\/\">NASA TV Coverage Set for Orbital ATK Resupply Mission to Space Station<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-tv-coverage-set-for-orbital-atk-resupply-mission-to-space-station-2\/embed\/#?secret=7BLGwmHV66\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA TV Coverage Set for Orbital ATK Resupply Mission to Space Station” — NASA\" data-secret=\"7BLGwmHV66\" 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\/2015\/12\/orbital-cygnus.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}