alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11497.

#### Dalton Fruit & Produce Co. *v.*Connally, sheriff, *et al.*

Decided July 13, 1920.

Kule; from Whitfield superior court — Judge Tarver. April 8, 1920.

*F. K. McCutchen,*for plaintiff.

*George G. Glenn, R. H. House,*for defendants.

Bloodworth, J.

The only exception to any ruling in this case is thus stated in the bill of exceptions: “ To the refusal of the court to allow the plaintiff to file traverses to the answers filed by the defendants in said case the plaintiff in error then and there excepted, and now excepts and assigns the same as error, because the same is contrary to law.” This is not an exception to a final judgment. “ A bill of exceptions .in which there is no exception to the final judgment does not confer jurisdiction upon this court, and the writ of error must be dismissed.” *Simmons*v. *Peagler, 7 Ga. App.*252 (66 S. E. 629), and cit. See also *Lyndon*v. *Ga. Ry.*& *Electric Co.,*129 *Ga.*354 (3) (58 S. E. 1047); *Montgomery*v. *Reynolds,*124 *Ga.*1053 (53 S. E. 512), and cit.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
Enhancing the Light-Matter Interaction with Optical Antennas

Lukas Novotny

Institute of Optics and Department of Physics

University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627

Optical antennas are devices designed to efficiently convert optical radiation into localized energy, and 

vice versa. They enhance the interaction between light and matter, and have the potential to boost the 

efficiency of optoelectronic devices ranging from light-emitting diodes to solar cells.

In this presentation I will review the history of optical antennas and demonstrate their use for localizing 

optical radiation to length-scales much smaller than the wavelength of light. I will discuss experiments 

that use a single molecule as an elementary receiver and transmitter and demonstrate that 

the emission efficiency can be controllably increased by two orders of magnitude. I will also discuss the 

use of optical antennas for high-resolution optical microscopy and spectroscopy and review applications 

ranging from biology to solid-state physics.
11505.

#### Taylor *v.*The State.

Broyles, C. J.

1. “ The offense charged in the Renal Code, § 110, is complete if it be shown that the accused fraudulently decoyed or enticed away a child under the age of eighteeen years, against the will of both his parents and without the consent of either of such parents, even though it be not shown that the accused either forcibly or maliciously did lead, take, or carry away the child in question. It is sufficient, to authorize conviction of this offense, if it be shown that the child in question was decoyed or enticed away from parental control without the consent of the parent.” *Arrington v. State,*3 *Ga. App.**50130 (2) (59 S. E. 207). If there be any conflict between this ruling and the decision in *Hendon*v. *State,*10 *Ga. App.*78 (72 S. E. 522), the older adjudication must be followed.

Decided July 15, 1920.

Indictment for kidnapping; from Gordon superior court — Judge Tarver. April 17, 1920.

*F. A. Cantrell, M. B. Eubanks,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. M.*Lang, solicitor-general, contra.

2. The evidence, together with the legal inferences and deductions arising therefrom, authorized the jury to find that the defendant and another person conspired together to fraudulently decoy or entice away a girl under the age of eighteen years from her parents without their consent, in violation of section 110 of the Penal Code (1910), and that subsequently this conspiracy was actually carried out. Under the well-settled rule that where two or more persons enter into a conspiracy to do an unlawful thing, the act of any one of the conspirators, in furthering the conspiracy, is the act of all of the conspirators, the defendant’s conviction in this case was authorized.

4. None of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial, when considered in the light of the facts of the case, shows cause .for a reversal of the judgment below.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
11702.

#### Moran *v.*The State.

Decided November 9, 1920.

Rehearing denied December 15, 1920.

Conviction of shooting at another; from Crawford superior court — Judge Mathews. June 16. 1920.

*John R. Cooper, W. O. Cooper Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Charles E. Garrett, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

The evidence amply authorized the verdict, and none of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial requires a reversal ■of the judgment below.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WENDY COUNTRYMAN, )

 f/k/a WENDY M. BELL, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO: 09-0512-CG-N

 )

AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY )

AND CASUALTY COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

 

ORDER

Counsel for the parties notified the court that this action has been settled. Accordingly,

it is ORDERED that all claims in the above-styled action are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE subject to the right of any party to reinstate the action within thirty (30) days of

the date of this order should the settlement agreement not be consummated.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of February, 2010.

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00512-CG-N Document 42 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from Thiokol
Corporation's  Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 1997, and Consolidated
Statements of Operations at June 30, 1997,  and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          51,369
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  148,235
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,841
<INVENTORY>                                     84,595
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               311,612
<PP&E>                                         595,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                 311,864
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 854,363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          139,492
<BONDS>                                          1,920
<COMMON>                                        20,538
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     500,584
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   854,363
<SALES>                                        890,129
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               931,534
<CGS>                                          723,689
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  745,554
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                68,940
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   874
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                115,312
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,883
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             82,429
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    82,429
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.38
        

</TABLE>
THE STATE OF TEXAS 

### M A N D A T E

TO THE 25TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF GUADALUPE COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on September 9, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Ronald Whit Dubose, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04

- 15

- 00444

- CR and Tr. Ct. No. 07

- 1246

- CR

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on November 9, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
Order filed March 25, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00961-CR

____________

ERIC GUY MARKLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1859025

ORDER

Appellant is represented by retained counsel, Charles G. Kingsbury. No 

reporter’s record has been filed in this case. Sondra Humphrey, the court reporter

for this case, informed this court that appellant had not made arrangements for 

payment for the reporter’s record. On February 26, 2014, the clerk of this court 

notified appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that do not 

require a reporter’s record unless appellant, within 15 days of notice, provided this 

court with proof of payment for the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). Appellant 

filed no response. Accordingly, we issue the following order:
We ORDER appellant’s retained counsel, Charles G. Kingsbury, to file a 

brief in this appeal on or before April 24, 2014. If Charles G. Kingsbury does not 

timely file the brief as ordered, the court will consider issuing an order for a 

hearing in the trial court or a show cause order directing counsel to appear before 

this court on a date certain to show cause why he should not be held in contempt 

for failing to file the brief as ordered.

PER CURIAM
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-6153 BLANE WADE O'NEAL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-92-212, CA-96-779) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Blane Wade O'Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting in part and denying in part his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), and imposing a new sentence upon v acatur of his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West 1976 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the districtcourt's opinion and, to the extent that the district court granted Appellant's motion to vacate his conviction under § 924(c) and denied his motion on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, we find no reversible error. Therefore, we affirm in part on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. O'Neal , Nos. CR-92-212; CA-96-779 (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 1996).However, the district court erred in imposing a new sentence without having Appellant present and represented by counsel. See Mempa v. Rhay , 389 U.S. 128, 135 (1967) (right to counsel extends to sentencing); United States v. Nolley , 27 F.3d 80, 82 (4th Cir. 1994) (presence of defendant and counsel required upon resentencing after vacatur of original sentence). Therefore, we vacate the sentence andremand this case for resentencing with Appellant present and represented by counsel unless, after proper inquiry, Appellant waives his right to counsel. Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability, affirm in part, vacate the sentence imposed, and remand this case for resentencing with the Appellant present. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,400,874
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,678,333
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,265,601
<INVENTORY>                                    438,728
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,846,934
<PP&E>                                       8,129,842
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,090,984
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,843,114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,965,067
<BONDS>                                      7,246,312
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       626,782
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,301,745
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,843,114
<SALES>                                     95,086,851
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            95,086,851
<CGS>                                       76,540,790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,733,037
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,913,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,142,439)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,146,439)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,146,439)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.92)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DIONE A. FAVORS, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 09-0045-WS-N 

 ) 

ALABAMA POWER COMPANY, ) 

 ) 

Defendant. )

JUDGMENT 

 In accordance with the Order entered on this date, granting defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment (doc. 28), it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that this action be, and the 

same hereby is, dismissed with prejudice. 

 DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of July, 2010. 

 s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00045-WS-N Document 50 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 1
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 Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2007 (the "Report") of FMS Financial  Corporation (the  "Corporation")
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof,  we,
Craig W. Yates,  President and Chief Executive  Officer,  and Channing L. Smith,
Vice  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer,  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 results of operations of the
Corporation.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


<S>                                                           <C>
/s/ Craig W. Yates                                            /s/ Channing L. Smith
------------------------------------------                    -------------------------------------------
Craig W. Yates                                                Channing L. Smith
President and Chief Executive Officer                         Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                                              (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
</TABLE>

May 15, 2007
EX 4.2 ARC HCT III 03.31.2015 10-Q SS


Exhibit   4.2


FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
OF
AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL HEALTHCARE TRUST III OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.


This FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL HEALTHCARE TRUST III OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P. (this “Amendment”), is made as of May 13, 2015 by AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL HEALTHCARE TRUST III, INC., a Maryland corporation, as general partner (the “General Partner”).  Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Agreement of Limited Partnership of the Partnership, dated as of August 20, 2014 (the “Partnership Agreement”).
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the General Partner desires to amend the Partnership Agreement to change the forfeiture provisions of the Class B Units; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16.2(a)(iv) of the Partnership Agreement, the General Partner may in its sole discretion change the forfeiture provisions contained in Section 16.2(a) of the Partnership Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises made hereunder, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:
		
	a.
	Section 16.2(a)(ii) of the Partnership Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following new Section 16.2(a)(ii)  is substituted in its place: 


“(ii)    One hundred percent (100%) of the outstanding Restricted Class B Units shall no longer be subject to forfeiture and shall constitute “Unrestricted Class B Units” at such time as a Liquidity Event occurs; provided, that the Advisor pursuant to the Advisory Agreement is providing services to the Partnership immediately prior to the occurrence of an event of the type described therein, unless the failure to provide such services is attributable to a Termination Without Cause.”


 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, intending to be legally bound hereby, have duly executed this Agreement as of the date and year first aforesaid.


GENERAL PARTNER:


AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL HEALTHCARE TRUST III




By:     __/s/ Thomas P. D’Arcy________________
Name:    Thomas P. D’Arcy
		
	Title: 
	Chief Executive Officer 







[Signature Page to First Amendment to Agreement of Limited Partnership]
Exhibit 12

QWEST CORPORATION        CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES        (UNAUDITED)

Years Ended December 31,2008

2007

2006

2005

2004(Dollars in millions)Income from continuing operations before income taxes and cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles

$
2,267

$
2,440

$
1,882

$
1,628

$
1,871Add: estimated fixed charges


671


682


700


700


686Add: estimated amortization of capitalized interest


12


10


10


12


12Less: interest capitalized


(14
)

(12
)

(12
)

(10
)

(12
)Total earnings available for fixed charges

$
2,936

$
3,120

$
2,580

$
2,330

$
2,557Estimate of interest factor on rentals

$
68

$
62

$
72

$
82

$
75Interest expense, including amortization of premiums, discounts and debt issuance costs(1)


589


608


616


608


599Interest capitalized


14


12


12


10


12Total fixed charges

$
671

$
682

$
700

$
700

$
686Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


4.4


4.6


3.7


3.3


3.7


---

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of the President and Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Whitehall Limited, Inc.
(the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ Ronald Mustari
|Ronald Mustari    
|September 11, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-11319

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WAYNE PHILIP PITTS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-66-1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Wayne Philip Pitts

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Pitts has not timely filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* 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

October 16, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-11319 Document: 00512805308 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2014
No. 13-11319

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-11319 Document: 00512805308 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2014