alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9552.

#### Thomas *v.*The State.

Bloodworth, J.

1. No question for determination by this court is presented by a bill of exceptions pendente lite which ■ alleges: “Upon hearing argument on the *indictment the same was overruled*by the judge *189presiding in said case. To the *overruling of said indictment*the defendant then and there excepted, now excepts, and assigns said ruling so *overruling said indictment*as error on all the grounds contained therein, and now within the time allowed by law files these his bill of exceptions pendente lite and prays that the same may be certified as true, in order that the errors alleged to have been committed therein may be reviewed and reversed, and he will' ever pray.” (Italics ours.)

Decided April 10, 1918.

Indictment for forgery; from Laurens superior court—Judge Kent. November *2i, 1917.*

*Hal B. Wimberly,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. L. Stephens, solicitor-general, contra.*

2. So far as the record brings to this court any question of review there is nothing attacking the legal sufficiency of the indictment. It charges a violation of only one criminal statute, and the verdict is not illegal for the reasons urged in the first ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial. *Brazil*v. *State,*117 *Ga.*32 (2) (43 S. E. 460); *Martin*v. *State,*10 *Ga. App.*795 (74 S. E. 304).

3. Grounds 2 and 3 of the amendment to the motion for' a new trial are not complete within themselves. To determine them would' require reference to other parts of the record, and, under numerous decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court, such assignments of error will not be considered. *Braxley*v. *State,*17 *Ga. App.*196 (4) (86 S. E. 425); *City of Atlanta*v. *Sciple,*19 *Ga. App.*694 (1), 696 (92 S. E. 28), and cit.; *Smiley*v. *Smiley, 144 Ga.*546 (2) (87 S. E. 668); *Louisville & Nashville R. Co.*v. *Ogles,*146 *Ga.*20 (90 S. E. 476); *Bowen*v. *Smith-Hall Grocery Co.,*146 Ga. 157 (4) (91 S. E. 32).

4. The evidence supports the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 125 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        April 24, 1997.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1271) to authorize the Federal Aviation Administration's research, 
engineering, and development programs for fiscal years 1998 through 2000, and 
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with 
section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Science. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under 
the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science now printed in the bill. 
Each section of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
considered as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute for failure to comply with section 306 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. During consideration of the bill 
for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused 
it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 
been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
9293.

#### Southern Railway Company *v.*Poole.

Decided May 14, 1918.

Action for damages; from city court of Hall county—Judge Wheeler. ■ October 6, 1917.

*E. A. Neely, J. O. Adams, Ed. Quillian, Q. R. Faullcner,*for plaintiff in error. *W. A. Charters,*for defendant.

Luke, J.

1. The excerpts from the charge of the court complained of, when read, in connection with the entire charge, were not misleading or confusing to the jury.: One of the excerpts complained of is almost identical in words with the charge approved in *Wrightsville & Tennille R. Co.*v. *Tompkins,*9 *Ga. App.*154 (70 S. E. 955). See also *Atkinson*v. *Swords,*11 *Ga. App.*167 (74 S. E. 1093). In addition the court, in approving this ground of motion for a new trial, certifies that on the trial of the ease the movant urged the decision in *Wrightsville & Tennile R. Co.*v. *Tompkins,*supra, as the law controlling as to the plaintiff’s right to recover. See *Wholesale Mercantile Co.*v. *Jackson,*2 *Ga. App. 776*(59 S. E. 106); *Burley*v. *State,*130 *Ga.*343 (60 S. E. 1006).

2. The question of negligence was for determination by the jury, and there was evidence to authorize the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge. Eor none of the reasons assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, O. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

FRANKLIN DERREL GOODWIN

,

Petitioner

,

v

. Case No. 5D 23

- 1375

LT Case No. 2022

- CF

- 001213

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed April 25, 2023

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,

A Case of Original Jurisdiction.

Franklin Derrel Goodwin, Bushnell

, pro se.

No Appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

.

D ISMISSED

. See Logan v. State , 846 So. 2d 472, 479 (Fla. 2003) ( “ If

a petition clearly indicates that the petitioner is represented by counsel in the

pending criminal proceeding, and the petitioner does not unequivocally seek2

to discharge counsel in that proceeding by way of the petition, the petition

will be dismissed as unauthorized. ” ).

MAKAR, JAY a nd PRATT , JJ., concur.
Sales Contract with Vivai Viveros Marchi Company



 EXHIBIT 10.26 
  
 Official translation from Italian language 
  

VIVAI VIVEROS MARCHI 
  
 SALES CONTRACT 
  
 The VIVAI MARCHI Company, 10, Zotutti Str., RAUSCEDO PN ITALIA, in the person of Mr. Marchi Ezio, the representative of said enterprise, on the one part; the Company
“ASCONI” S.R.L., in the person of Mr. ANATOLIE SIRBU, the chief financial officer of said enterprise, on the other part; have agreed on the following: 
  
 VIVAI MARCHI undertakes to sell to the ASCONI S.R.L. following commodities in accordance with conditions stated below: 
  
 Description of Commodities: Certified engrafted seedlings. 
  
 Quantities envisaged for the season of 2004: 
  

			
	 - CABERNET, SAUVIGNON various clones X SO4
	  	 n. 367382-

	 - GAMAY FREAUX (OR OTHER TINTURIER) SO4
	  	 n. 18592-

	 - MERLOT various clones X SO4
	  	 n. 48016-

	 - CHARDONNAY various clones SO4
	  	 n. 57211-


  
 Transportation shall be performed on the Buyer’s account on or before 31.03.2004. 
 Unit Price: Euro 1,00.
Excluding customs and import duties. 
  
 Plants shall be preserved by
paraffination with roots cut up to +/- 8cm and wrapped in packing for prolonged storage. 
  
 Payments: 
  

	-	Commodities of 2004: 

  

			
	 Payment of 10% to enterprise the contract is concluded with:
	 	 Euro 49.120

	 Advance payment of 75% for delivery of plants
	 	 Euro 368.401

	 Final balance of 15% till 30.06.2004
	 	 Euro 73.680


  
 The present Contract becomes valid
following its signing by above indicated parties. 
  
 Besides special conditions
provided above, the contract is made on the basis of general sales conditions disclosed on the back side of the present contract and applied to commercial operations of the E.U.R.L. Pepinieres Viticoles Philippe Dayde and Vivai Marchi of Mr. Marchi
Ezio. 
  
 Dated : December 7, 2003

  

			
	VIVAI MARCHI	  	SRL ASCONI
		
	 /s/ Marchi Ezio

	  	 /s/ Anatolie Sirbu


	 Marchi Ezio
	  	 Anatolie Sirbu

	 Authorized Signature
	  	 Authorized Signature


  
 Payments shall be made in conformity
with following banking requisites: BANCA POPOLARE FRIULADRIA – AGENZIA DI SPILIMBERGO - ABAN 1163 C053 3665 0310 0000 0351 399 
  
 Contract is made and signed in three copies. 
  
 VIVAI MARCHI de Marchi Ezio 
 Str. P. Zorutti,
10 - 33090 Rauscedo (PN) - Part. Iva 00627010937- Telefon 0427.94756 - Fax 0427.94722 
 E-mail: info@vivaimarchi.com –
www.vivaimarchi.com
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION

Re:	CDC Mortgage Capital Trust 2004-HE1 Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2004-HE1, issued pursuant to the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 1, 2004 (the "Pooling and
Servicing Agreement"), among Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., as
depositor (the "Depositor", CDC Mortgage Capital Inc., as unaffiliated
seller, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee (the "Trustee"),
and Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, as servicer (the "Servicer").

I, Craig Phillips, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ("Annual Report"), and
all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports
(collectively with this Annual Report, the "Reports") filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this Annual Report of the Depositor
relating to the above-referenced trust and series of certificates;

2.	Based on my knowledge, the information in the Reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this Annual Report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the Trustee by the Servicer under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement for inclusion in the Reports is included in these Reports;

4.	Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included
in this Annual Report and required to be delivered to the Trustee in accordance
with the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and except as disclosed
in the Reports, the Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Pooling
and Servicing Agreement; and

5.	The Reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
Servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review
in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
or similar procedure, as set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, that
is included in the Reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: the Trustee and the
Servicer.

Date: March 24, 2005
/s/: Craig Phillips
Signature: Craig Phillips
Title: President
EXHIBIT 31.1    SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



ME PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT LIMITED SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Nicholas Vamvakas, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed  this annual  report on Form 10-K,  and all reports on Form
     6-K and Form 8-K  containing  distribution  or servicing  reports  filed in
     respect of periods  included in the year covered by this annual report,  of
     SMHL Global Fund No.3;

2.   Based on my knowledge,  the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
     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 as of
     the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge,  the distribution or servicing  information required
     to be  provided  to the  trustee  by the  servicer  under the  pooling  and
     servicing,  or  similar,  agreements,  for  inclusion  in these  reports is
     included in these reports;

4.   I am  responsible  for reviewing the  activities  performed by the servicer
     under the pooling and servicing,  or similar,  agreements and based upon my
     knowledge and the annual  compliance  review required under that agreement,
     and except as  disclosed in the reports,  the  servicer has  fulfilled  its
     obligations under that agreement; and

5.   The  reports  disclose  all  significant   deficiencies   relating  to  the
     servicer's  compliance with the minimum servicing  standards based upon the
     report provided by an independent  public  accountant,  after  conducting a
     review in  compliance  with the  Uniform  Single  Attestation  Program  for
     Mortgage  Bankers or similar  procedure,  as set forth in the  pooling  and
     servicing, or similar, agreements, that is included in these reports.



  /s/  N. VAMVAKAS
---------------------------------
N. Vamvakas
Director - ME Portfolio Management Limited
Date: September 24, 2004
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 3, 2017

No. 04-17-00452-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A. T., CHILDREN,

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-PA-01692

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal from a trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental 

rights. The clerk’s record was filed on July 21, 2017 and shows appellant filed a notice of appeal 

on July 17, 2017, in which he contends he is appealing a “final decree of termination, ordered on 

JULY 10, 2017.” However, the clerk’s record does not include a final order of termination 

signed by the trial court. The clerk’s office of this court contacted the district clerk’s office by 

telephone and was advised that no order of termination has been signed. 

Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con 

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 196 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for appellate purposes if it disposes 

of all pending parties and claims in the record. Id. Because it appears there is no final order of 

termination in the clerk’s record, it appears there is no final judgment from which appellant may 

appeal at this time. 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a written response in this court on or before 

August 18, 2017, showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). If appellant fails to satisfactorily respond within the 

time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See id. R. 42.3(c). If a supplemental clerk’s record 

is required to establish this court’s jurisdiction, appellant must ask the trial court clerk to prepare 

one and must notify the clerk of this court that such a request was made. All deadlines in this 

matter are suspended until further order of the court.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on the trial court, appellant, 

appellee, and the district clerk. 
_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of August, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ROBERT ANDREW FFRENCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03178

Judge Franklin U. Valderrama

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cummings

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal, without prejudice, as to the following Defendant(s) identified on Schedule A of the 

Complaint:

NO. DEFENDANT

55 6hk7243

58 allstar-seller

62 clother_trade

68 felif-7

103 soptoptrade2015

104 tgsbuys

106 tsbuynow

108 whemyqong5

DATED: October 12, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt (Bar No. 6207971)

Keith Vogt, Ltd.

111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: 312-675-6079

E-mail: keith@vogtip.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case: 1:20-cv-03178 Document #: 65 Filed: 10/12/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:801
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document was electronically filed on October 12, 2020 with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system, which will automatically send an email notification of such filing to all registered 

attorneys of record.

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt

Case: 1:20-cv-03178 Document #: 65 Filed: 10/12/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:802
<FN>





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 XFormity Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Christopher Ball, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Jack Rabin, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, 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/  Christopher
Ball


Christopher
Ball


Chief
Executive Officer


November
16, 2009





/s/  Jack
Rabin


Jack
Rabin


Chief
Financial Officer


November
16, 2009
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 23

- 00127

- CV

EX PARTE K.Y.S.

From the 150th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022

- CI

- 14239

Honorable Angelica Jimenez , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 19, 2023

DISMISSED

On March 29 , 202 3 , appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal moving this court to

dismiss its appeal. Appellant’s motion to dismiss its appeal is granted, and this appeal is dismissed.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Because the motion does not indicate that the parties agreed

otherwise, costs of appeal are taxed against the appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-4-2006 

# In Re: W al l a ce P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4934

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: W al l a c e " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1792. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/17921

HP S - 1 3 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 05- 4934

________________ I N R E: M AR GA RET W ALLA CE, P eti ti o n er.

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om t he U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o C i v. N o. 04- cv- 00819)

_____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Unde rRul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

D ece m ber16, 2005 BEFORE: SCI RI CA , CH I EF J UD GE, W EI S a n d GA RTH , CI RCU I T J UD GES (F il ed : Jan u ary4 , 2 0 0 6 )

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M.

M ar gar etW al l ace as ks t hatw e i s s ue a w r i tof m andamus di r ect i ng H onor abl e R . B ar cl aySur r i ck t o r ecus e hi m s el f bec aus e he ha s fai l ed t o rul e on al l eged a tto rn e yf

ra u d th a t W a llac e h a s d o c u m e n ted in th e re c o rd . W a llac e a d d iti o n a llya sk s th is C our tt o adj udi cat e the i s s ues of att or neyfr aud s he pr es ent ed t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t . For th e re a s o n s th a t f

o llo w , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n .T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed W al l ace ’ s C om pl ai nton N ovember18, 2005,

p u rs u a n t to P o u lis v . S ta te F a rm F ir e & C a s u a lty C o ., 7 4 7 F .2 d 8 6 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ). W a lla c e h a s a p p e a le d f

ro m th a t o rd e r. S e e C .A . 0 5 -5 2 1 6 . T h u s , w e w ill d is m is s th is m a n d a m u s p e titio n a s m o o t.
#### James Louder *v.*W. F. McDonnell.

Appeal and Error — Jurisdiction—Answer Without Objection.

The appellant answered both the original and cross-petition of the appellee without objection to the jurisdiction of the court, but failed to answer the amended cross-petition.

Held, that the objection taken for the first time in the Court of Appeals, that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to render the judgment, cannot be sustained.

APPEAL PROM LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT.

January 4, 1871.

*171Throop, *for appellant.*

Scott, *for appellee.*

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The appellant answered both the original petition and cross petition of the appellee without objection to the jurisdiction of the court; and being thus before the court and having failed to answer the amended cross-petition, alleging his indebtedness to Anderson for part of the consideration of his purchase of the land, or the hond of Branon, the objection taken for the first time in this court, that the circuit court had not jurisdiction to render the judgment cannot be sustained. Nor did the court err in treating the averments of the amended cross petition as confessed by the failure to answer them — the appellant being before the court as a party to the action and in the pleadings, and not merely as a garnishee by service of an order of attachment. Nor do we perceive any error in the refusal of the court to vacate the judgment for the amount alleged to be due from the appellant to Anderson. Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*