alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10059.

#### BOWDEN, sheriff, *v.*SCOTT.

Decided April 19, 1919.

A recovery on the forthcoming bond of a claimant of property seized under an attachment was not authorized where no execution had’ been issued on the judgment rendered on the attachment. Without such an execution the levying officer was not authorized to sell the property and could not make a legal demand for it under the bond; and it would make no difference that the property had been dissipated while in the possession of the party who had given the bond.

Certiorari; from Bibb superior court—Judge Mathews. July 19, 1918.

*Charles H. Garrett,*for plaintiff.

*Hardeman, Jones, Park & Johnston, Harry S. Strozier,*for defendant.

Luke, J.

This is a suit on a forthcoming bond given by a claimant in attachment; and to entitle the plaintiff to recover there must have been a breach of the bond. There was no such breach, since there never was a fi. fa. in the attachment ease. Nor was there a judgment or fi. fa. in the claim case. A judgment in attachment can be enforced only by execution. Civil Code (1910), § 5122. See also *Rogers*v. *McDill,*9 *Ga.*506. The plaintiff seeks to avoid this result by saying that there was a breach because the property was not produced on demand and was dissipated. This contention is, however, unsound, since he could not make a legal demand or complain of the dissipation of the property, until’legally in position to sell it, and he could not be 'legally in position to sell until he had a fi. fa. See *Hatton*v. *Brown,*1 *Ga. App.*747 (2) (57 S. E. 1044); *Lassiter*v. *Byrd,*55 *Ga.*606.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
Exhibit 11.1
<TABLE>
                     SOLECTRON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)
<CAPTION>
                                Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended
                                Feb. 28,   Feb. 29,   Feb. 28,  Feb. 29,
                                  1997       1996       1997      1996
                                ________  ________    ________  ________
<S>                             <C>       <C>         <C>       <C>
Weighted average number of 
 shares of common stock and
 common stock equivalents:

Primary:
 Common stock                     56,276    49,989      54,610    49,856
 Common stock equivalents -
  stock options                    1,943     1,541       1,899     1,424
                                ________  ________    ________  ________
    Total primary shares          58,219    51,530      56,509    51,280
                                ________  ________    ________  ________

Fully diluted:
 Common shares issuable
  upon assumed conversion 
  of convertible subordinated
  notes                            3,402     1,974       3,402     1,967

 Incremental increase in 
  common stock equivalents 
  using end of period market 
  price                               -        344           2       483
                                ________  ________    ________  ________
Total fully diluted shares        61,621    53,848      59,913    53,730
                                ________  ________    ________  ________


Net income - primary            $ 37,565  $ 27,650    $ 69,040  $ 54,997

 Interest accretion on 
  convertible subordinated 
  notes, net of taxes              2,380       241       4,657       591
                                ________  ________    ________  ________
Net income - fully diluted      $ 39,945  $ 27,891    $ 73,697  $ 55,588
                                ________  ________    ________  ________

Net income per share - primary  $  0.65   $  0.54     $  1.22   $  1.07
                                ________  ________    ________  ________

Net income per share - 
 fully diluted                  $  0.65   $  0.52     $  1.22<F1>$  1.03
                                ________  ________    ________  ________
<F1> Equals primary amount as fully diluted calculation is anti-dilutive.
</TABLE>
#### Archy Caldwell *v.*Commonwealth.

Criminal Law — Reversal—Overruling Demurrer — New Trial.

Where a judgment has been rendered in a misdemeanor case, reversal 'can not 'be had merely because a demurrer has been improperly overruled, or for error in granting or refusing a new trial. (Code of Practice, § 349, p. 659.)

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

December 18, 1872.

*Gibbon & Paulcomr, for appellant.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

This court had repeatedly held that an indictment charging the defendant with having kept a tippling house is sufficient without specifying or alleging the facts necessary to' be proven in order to create the offense.

When a judgment has been rendered in a case for misdemeanor no reversal can be had because a demurrer has been improperly overruled, or for ah error in granting or refusing a new trial. Code of Practice, Sec. 349, page 659. We can not adjudge from' the facts whether the indictment upon which the defendant was found guilty was or not for the same offense contained in the indictment transferred to the district court.

It was certainly not the same indictment, and it seems to us that the defendant in order to avail himself of the right to be tried in a different tribunal, should have adopted the mode prescribed by the law of Congress on the subject.

The judgment of the court below is *affirmed.*

-, *for appellee.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott Paul BUTLER, Michael Thomas Smith, a/k/a Thomas M. Smith, Garrison Dominy Barnes, Thomas Richard Wingate, Robert Raymond Barnes, William Arthur Hiscock, John Richard Barnes, Jr., George Gary Holder, Robert Tyler Milne, Hugh Thomas McConaghy, Joseph Henry Cusanelli, a/k/a William Joseph, and Frederick John Fazio, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 78-5777.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 18, 1980.

*686James K. Jenkins, Atlanta, Ga., for Butler.

Steadman S. Stahl, Jr., Hollywood, Fla., for all others.

Kathrine L. Henry, William H. McAbee, Asst. U. S. Attys., Savannah, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion February 14, 1980, 5 Cir., 1980, 611 F.2d 1066).

Before THORNBERRY, CHARLES CLARK and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The only contention made by appellants in their Petitions for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc which merits discussion is Scott Paul Butler’s argument that the panel erred in stating that he was arrested on the shrimp boat. He asserts that because he was not arrested on the boat that there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. We must disagree. Although at the time of the arrest Butler was at the end of the dock by the shrimp boat rather than on the boat (as stated in the opinion), his personal belongings, including a prescription drug bottle, were found on the boat. That connects him to the instrumentality which the jury could well infer brought the marijuana to the Plantation, thus giving him sufficient connections to the conspiring group to sustain his conspiracy conviction, and sufficient relationship to the marijuana to sustain his conviction for aiding and abetting the possession of marijuana. Moreover, the fact that he was dressed differently from several of the other conspirators (he was wearing a white shirt and overalls) does not lessen his connection to the shrimp boat.

We also wish to clarify a statement made in the opinion in this case. In discussing the appellant’s jury challenges, we stated: “Like the *Maskeny [United States v. Maskeny,*609 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1980)] court, we decline to abandon the absolute disparity method for dealing with jury challenges.” *Butler,*at 1070. We did not wish to imply that the absolute disparity method is the sole means of establishing unlawful jury discrimination. However, given the small absolute disparities proven and the fact that a “less-than-10% minority” was not at issue, we did not feel consideration of other statistical methods was necessary in this case.

The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 16), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated June 3, 1998, included in this Annual Report on Form 11-K, into the
Union Pacific Resources Group Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statements
No. 333-22655 and No. 333-52605 on Form S-3 and No. 333-22613 and No.
333-35641 on Form S-8.




ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Fort Worth, Texas
June 15, 1998
HMM Reference NIST Technical Note 2205: Item 40 Between Deck Boards

Item 40 Between Deck Boards – Insert metal flashing between deck boards and joists can reduce ignition between deck materials.

Metal flashing between deck boards 

and joists could reduce ignition

Image below was taken 

from underneath this 

wood deck

Note: Selected photographs are included to illustrate each HMM hardening item. Additional vulnerabilities or hardening items may be seen in the photographs, but those are highlighted within their specific HMM item.
There is no CAD drawing for 

Item 40: Between Deck Boards 

Please see photographs for illustrations.
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



In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of CompX  International  Inc.  (the
Company)  on Form 10-Q for the  period  ending  June 30,  2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Darryl R.
Halbert, Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer and Controller of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss.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/Darryl R. Halbert
-----------------------------------
Darryl R. Halbert
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
 and Controller
August 3, 2006





Note: The certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as
amended,  or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference,  except as otherwise  expressly
stated in such filing.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4115 

To amend the Act of November 2, 1966 (80 Stat. 1112), to allow binding 

arbitration clauses to be included in all contracts affecting the land 

within the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Reservation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2004 

Mr. HAYWORTH (for himself and Mr. FLAKE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Act of November 2, 1966 (80 Stat. 1112), 

to allow binding arbitration clauses to be included in 

all contracts affecting the land within the Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa Indian Reservation. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. BINDING ARBITRATION FOR SALT RIVER PIMA4 MARICOPA INDIAN RESERVATION CON5 TRACTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2(c) of the Act of Novem7 ber 2, 1966 (25 U.S.C. 416a(c)), is amended— 

8 (1) in the first sentence— 
2 

•HR 4115 IH 

1 (A) by striking ‘‘Any lease’’ and all that 

2 follows through ‘‘affecting land’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘Any contract, including a lease, affecting 

4 land’’; and 

5 (B) by striking ‘‘such lease or contract’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘such contract’’; and 

7 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘Such 

8 leases or contracts entered into pursuant to such 

9 Acts’’ and inserting ‘‘Such contracts’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

11 this section shall take effect as if included in the Indian 

12 Tribal Economic Development and Contract Encourage13 ment Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–179). 

Æ
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ABC Corporation I. et al,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS and 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04806

Judge: Thomas M. Durkin

DEFENDANT GYROOR’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM OF GYROOR

Defendant Gyroor, by and through counsel, files this Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 

motion to dismiss counterclaim Count II of Defendant Gyroor [Dkt. No. 481].

Background

On November 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss Defendant’s counterclaim Count II

under Rule 12(b)(6) and for failing to satisfy pleading standard under Rule 8. 

On December 3, 2021, Defendant duly amended its pleadings pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) [Dkt. No. 486].

Legal Standards

“It is well established that an amended complaint ordinarily supersedes the original and renders 

it of no legal effect.” Pressley v. Brownfield, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 15438, at*4 (7th Cir. 1997) 

(quoting Prymer v. Ogden, 29 F.3d 1208, 1215 n.6 (7th Cir. 1994)). 

After a party properly amended its pleadings, a district court can either deny the pending motion to 

dismiss as moot or consider the merits of the motion in light of the facts alleged in the amended pleadings. 

See Pettaway v. Nat'l Recovery Sols., LLC, 955 F.3d 299, 303 (2d Cir. 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 487 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:13374
2

Arguments

Defendant has amended its counterclaims, which includes specific facts and legal analysis. In 

addition, Defendant states “in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it” as 

required under Rule 8(b)(1)(A).

Therefore, the basis for Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Defendant’s counterclaim Count II under Rule 

12(b)(6) and for failing to satisfy the pleading standards under Rule 8 have been cured by Defendant’s 

amended pleadings. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests the Court to deny Plaintiff’s 

motion to dismiss as moot. 

Date: 12/03/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju

Tianyu Ju, Esq.

GLACIER LAW PLLC

200 E. Randolph Dr., Ste. 5100

Chicago, IL 60601

Attorney for Defendant

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 487 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:13375
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this December 3, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing file 

with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and service was perfected on all counsel of record 

and interested parties through this system, which will deliver a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

documents via CM/ECF.

Date: 12/03/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 487 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:13376
---

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Most Home Corp., a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended April
30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
Kenneth Galpin, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does
hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

(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.

|Date: June 20, 2008 | /s/
      Kenneth Galpin             
|------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                    | Kenneth Galpin                       
|                    | President and Chief Executive Officer

[A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Most Home Corp. and will be retained by Most
Home Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.]

---
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

March 23 , 2023.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 23

- 00158

- CV

IN RE CRISTINO RUVALCABA, JR., AS TRUSTEE OF THE JUAN CARLOS RUVALCABA IRREVOCABLE TRUST; ELAM MEAT MARKET, LLC; L ONGVIEW MEAT MARKE T, LLC; AND SUPERMERCADO LATINO, LLC , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 507th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021

- 34821



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 8, 2023 , relator s Cristino Ruvalcaba, Jr., A s Tru stee of the Juan Carlos Ruvalcaba Irrevocable Trust; Elam Meat Market, LLC; Longview Meat Market, LLC; and Supermercado Latino, LLC filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R.2

App. P. 52. In th e petition, relator s ask this Court to compel the Honorable Julia Maldonado, presiding judge of the 507th District Court of Harris County
, to vacate her November 28, 2022 order denying relators ’ motion to transfer venue

. On March 14, 202 3, relators fi le d an unopposed motion to dismiss their petition for writ of mandamus

. A ccordingly, we grant realtors ’ unopposed motion

. Relator s ’ petition for writ of mandamus is dism issed. Additionally, the motion to
dismiss fi led by real party in interest Laura Ruval caba is dismissed as moot

.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board

          - [Docket No. FD 35865]

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of exemption.

# SUMMARY:

By decision served November 19, 2014, the Board is granting an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 for The Baltimore and Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Company (BOCT) and Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company (IHB) to modify a joint use agreement that would give BOCT dispatching responsibility over approximately 483 feet of track between Blue Island Junction Eastward Absolute Signal, milepost DIH 15.2, and the Westward Absolute Signal at CP Francisco (CP 154), milepost 15.3, near Blue Island Junction, Ill.

# DATES:

This exemption is effective on November 19, 2014. Petitions to reopen must be filed by December 9, 2014.

# ADDRESSES:

An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35865, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Louis E. Gitomer, Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Valerie Quinn, (202) 245-0382. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Additional information is contained in the Board's decision served November 19, 2014, which is available on our Web site at                     *www.stb.dot.gov.*

Decided: November 18, 2014.

By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Begeman.

Raina S. White,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2014-27763 Filed 11-21-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1998
<CASH>                                          56,659
<SECURITIES>                                    50,780
<RECEIVABLES>                                  175,512
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,974
<INVENTORY>                                     83,790
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               395,892
<PP&E>                                         167,074
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 558,875
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          150,923
<BONDS>                                         65,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       160,648
<OTHER-SE>                                     182,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   558,875
<SALES>                                        306,057
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               306,057
<CGS>                                          137,560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 56,160
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,094
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,066
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,066
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
        

</TABLE>