alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The HONORABLE WILLIAM G. CAMBRIDGE, Chief Judge, United

1

States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2105

___________

Duane Donaldson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 18, 1997

 Filed: February 28, 1997

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Duane D. Donaldson appeals the district court's dismissal of 1

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

conviction. Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs on

appeal, we conclude that the district court properly denied relief

and that no further discussion is warranted. See Bousley v.

Brooks, 97 F.3d 284, 287-88 (8th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

V. ) CR. NO. 05-00254-CG

 ) 

RALPH LAHQUAN STATEN, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

Sentencing hereby is RESCHEDULED for Thursday, May 11, 2006, at 1:30 p.m., to be

held in courtroom 2B, United States Courthouse, Mobile, AL. 

 DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of April, 2006.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cr-00254-CG-D Document 30 Filed 04/10/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>          5
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              $ 3,402
<SECURITIES>                                          8,347
<RECEIVABLES>                                        16,673
<ALLOWANCES>                                            559
<INVENTORY>                                           8,032
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     36,369
<PP&E>                                               54,313
<DEPRECIATION>                                       37,658
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       56,547
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                15,770
<BONDS>                                                 161
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              1,342
<OTHER-SE>                                           40,889
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         56,547
<SALES>                                              86,693
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     86,693
<CGS>                                                66,826
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        66,826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        (17)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       3,948
<INCOME-TAX>                                          1,003
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   2,945
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          2,945
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          2.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          2.52

        


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Bruce L. Hollander the President and CEO, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bio-Lok International Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report 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, nor misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flow of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for the establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
have;

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and

6. The registrants other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regards to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

|Date:June
      14, 2004 | /s/ Bruce L. Hollander , President
      & CEO
|------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------
|                         |                                               
|                         |                                               

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-30411 Conference Calendar

MARY ANN BIDDLE LOVELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BOARD OF REGENTS; E. JOSEPH SAVOIE; BOARD OF TRUSTEES; CAROL SHETLER; UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM; CARROLL J. FALCON; GRAMBLING STATE UNIVERSITY; STEVE A. FAVORS; NEARI F. WARNER, DR.; GERALD L. ELLIS; ANDOLYN B. HARRISON; WILTON BARHAM; BENNIE R. LOWERY; KATHRYN LEY; BARBARA MAYFIELD; VERNON L. FARMER, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-1004

-------------------- December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mary Ann Biddle Lovell, pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP), filed a civil rights complaint against numerous officials in the State of Louisiana University system including numerous members of the faculty at Grambling State University.No. 00-30411 -2- The district court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C .§ 1915(e) because Lovell’s conclusional allegations would not support a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In her brief on appeal, Lovell does not specifically address the district court’s dismissal of her case as frivolous. Although we apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel and liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants, pro se parties must brief the issues and reasonably comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 28. See Grant v. Cuellar , 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). As Lovell has not specifically addressed the district court’s dismissal of her complaint as frivolous, she has abandoned the only issue before this court. Lovell’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). It is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R.
42.2. Lovell has been cautioned that sanctions would be imposed if she continued to file frivolous pleadings. Lovell v. Hightower , No. 98-31375 (5th Cir. Aug. 27, 1999)(unpublished). Although we could impose sanctions for this frivolous appeal, we choose to again WARN Lovell that submission of any frivolous matter to this court or any court subject to the jurisdiction of this court at any time will subject her to sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME OF
MONSANTO COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND THE STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL POSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998. SUCH
INFORMATION IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000,000
              
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              89
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,404<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,004
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,190
<PP&E>                                           6,022
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,052
<BONDS>                                          6,259
<COMMON>                                         1,694
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,312 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,274
<SALES>                                          8,648
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,648
<CGS>                                            3,593
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 312
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (243)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         7
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (250)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (250)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.41)
<FN>
<F1>Reported net of allowances of $91
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                              CNB BANCORP, INC.

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of CNB Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William N. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted 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 Company.


By /s/ William N. Smith
-----------------------------------------
William N. Smith, Chief Executive Officer
November 9, 2004

<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 32.2

                              CNB BANCORP, INC.

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of CNB Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
George A. Morgan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted 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 Company.


By /s/ George A. Morgan
-----------------------------------------
George A. Morgan, Chief Financial Officer
November 9, 2004
11232.

#### Andrews *v.*Mayor and Aldermen of Savannah.

Broyles, C. J.

1. The charter of the City of Savannah as amended by the act of the General Assembly of Georgia, approved August 16, 1915 (Ga. L. 1915, p. 825), provides, that “no action for damages to person ■or property . . . shall bo instituted against the City of Savannah *183■ unless within six months from the'happening or inflicting of the injury complained of the complainant . . . shall give notice to the mayor and aldermen of said city of such injury in writing.” In the instant case the suit was against the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah for personal injuries, but the plaintiff’s petition showed that the required notice was not given until more than six months after the infliction of the injury sued for. The court therefore did not err in dismissing the petition, on the defendant’s motion.

Decided April 13, 1920.

Action for „ damages; from Chatham superior court — Judge Meldrim. November 12, 1919.

*Oliver & Oliver,*for plaintiff in error.

*Shelby Myrick, Edwin A. Cohen,*contra.

2. A constitutional question can not be considered by the reviewing court unless it is made during the trial of the case in the lower court. It is too late to raise such a question for the first time in the higher court. *Hendry*v. *State,*147 *Ga.*260 (8) (93 S. E. 413) ; *Bolton*v. *Newman,*147 *Ga.*400 (94 *S. E.*236; *Scoggins*v. *State,*24 *Ga: App.*677 (102 *S. E.*39). Counsel for the plaintiff in error contend in their brief that the provision of the charter of the City of Savannah referred to is invalid and unconstitutional. It does not appear, however, from the record or the bill of exceptions that this question was made in-the lower court, and, accordingly, it can not be considered by this court, or by the Supreme Court, to which court this case would have to be transferred if a constitutional question had been raised in the lower court.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 3, 2022

NO. 03-21-00276-CV

City of Austin-Austin Bergstrom International Airport, Appellant

v.

Betty Gean Deary Davis, Putative Representative of The Estate of Lonnie Deary, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on June 21, 2021.

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court 

agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses

the appeal. Appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the 

court below.
Exhibit 99.1
**Written Statement of thePresident and Chief Executive Officer****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350**
     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, theundersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Whitehall Limited, Inc.(the “Company”), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2002(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 theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
*/s/ Ronald Mustari*Ronald Mustari
#### J. M. Laney *v.*Smith Pase.

Estoppel — Agreement as to Boundary Line — Failure to Give Notice.

Where a devisee ¿greed with his brothers "and sisters as to a boundary line of the land devised to them by their father, whereby he was to have all the land east of such line, and he stood by and permitted the land west of the line to be sold without giving any warning or notice of claim thereto by him, he is estopped to assert a claim to any portion of the land .west of such line.

Trial — Instructions—Waiver.

Error in refusing to give or in qualifying instructions given, is waived by failure to object and except to such action of the court.

APPEAL PROM SIMPSON CIRCUIT COURT.

March 18, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

Prior to 1855 the father of appellant devised to him the tract of land on which appellant lived* and the residue of his lands to his other children, the brothers and sisters of appellant. After the death of their father, appellant agreed with his brothers and sisters *588on a line dividing his land from theirs, which is shown on the surveyor’s plat as the line from the letter “P” to the number “19”. The brothers and sisters of appellant sold,.and in 1855 conveyed their land to G. W. Hay, which land lay west of and up to the line from “P” to “19”; and appellant lived on, and claimed the land east of, and up to the same line.

*Bush, for appellant.*

*Geo. C. Harris, for appellee.*

When Hay purchased, appellant made no claim to the land now in controversy, although it is included in Hay’s deed. Hay sold to Wilson, he to Dean, and Dean to the father of appellee; and during all these sales appellant stood by, for he lived on the adjoining tract, claiming under his father’s will, under which the vendees of his brothers and sisters claimed, saw them pay, or knew that they were paying their money for this land, and gave them no warning of danger, and claimed himself the benefit of the agreement he made with his brothers and sisters, fixing the line as appellee now claims it. Under these circumstances appellant is in no condition to assert title to the land, even if the patents under which his father claimed the land did not cover it. •

Having surrendered this land to his brothers and sisters in consideration that they gave up to him all the land east of the conventional line, if he, by his patent acquired title to any of it, it would inure to their benefit and that of their vendees.

We therefore perceive no error in the refusal of the court below to give instruction No. 1 asked for by appellant, and in qualifying Nos. 10 and 11. Besides, we may' observe that we have not been able to find any exceptions in the record to the rulings of the court in refusing and qualifying instructions, so that the errors, if there were any, should be considered waived.

The judgment must be affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0000840401
<NAME>                                ACCUHEALTH, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                         USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               8
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,992
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,728)
<INVENTORY>                                        140
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,624
<PP&E>                                           3,255
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (2,293)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,770
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,710
<SALES>                                          8,378
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,378
<CGS>                                            5,593
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,387
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,036
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,638)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,638)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.73)



</TABLE>
Order entered May 20, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00002-CV

PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC, ET AL, Appellants

V.

JOAN MCCRAY, ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-09096-M

ORDER

By letter dated May 9, 2013, the Court requested that Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County 

District Clerk, file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s Order on Defendant 

Pilot Travel Centers, LLC’s Motion for Court to Vacate Order Granting Plaintiff’s Judgment 

Nunc Pro Tunc. The trial court signed this order on May 1, 2013. The supplemental clerk’s 

record was due in this Court on May 14, 2013. As of today’s date, the requested supplemental 

clerk’s record has not been filed. Accordingly, we ORDER Gary Fitzsimmons to file, ON OR 

BEFORE MAY 24, 2013, a supplemental clerk’s record containing the above-mentioned trial 

court order. 

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order, by electronic 

transmission, to Mr. Fitzsimmons and all counsel of record.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE