alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kesler *v.*Kesler.

Supreme *Court.—Jurisdiction.—Divorce.—Allowance to*Wife.—Oa an appeal from a judgment in a proceeding for a divorce, tlie Supreme Court cannot, on the application of the wife, originally made to that court, order an allowance to the wife, to be paid by the husband, for her support and the support of her children during the pendency of the appeal.

*154APPEAL from the Tipton Circuit Court.

*N. R. Overman, y. Green,*and *D. Waugh,*for appellant.

*y. W. Evans*and *jf. W. Robinson,*for appellee.

Downey, J.

This was a petition by the appellee against the appellant for a divorce, alimony, and the custody of the children of the parties. The defendant answered the petition by a general denial, and filed a cross petition, to which there was also a general denial. The case resulted in a judgment for a divorce to the petitioner in the origirial petition, for alimony in the amount of twelve hundred dollars, and for the custody of the children, with an allowance for their support. A motion for a new trial was overruled by the court.

The overruling of the motion for a new trial is the only error assigned.

An original application is made to this court for an allowance to the appellee, to be paid by the appellant, for the support of herself and her children during the time while the appeal is pending. The application is based on an affidavit of the appellee. We are of the opinion that the application should not be entertained. There is no statute, nor do we know of any precedent, for the making of such an allowance by this court.

The record is so made up that we cannot tell what is or is not in the bill of exceptions. We can see where it ends, but not where it begins. The clerk does not profess to copy the bill of exceptions, but the evidence is apparently copied by him into the record without being contained in any bill of exceptions. We cannot, therefore, say that the evidence did not justify the finding and judgment.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.*

*

 Petition for a rehearing overruled.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 22, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00740

- CR

Ex Parte J uan Luis BALTAZAR

- PEREZ

From the 49th Judicial District Court

, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11,801 Honorable Jose A. Lopez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The court reporter has filed a notification of late reporter’s record, requesting an extension. We grant the request and ORDER the court reporter to file the reporter’s record by
December 9, 2022.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

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

court on this 22nd day of November, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          41,251
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  278,593
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,819
<INVENTORY>                                    124,097
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               526,287
<PP&E>                                       4,012,859
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,449,830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,783,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          457,557
<BONDS>                                      1,220,394
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          505,048
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           781
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,118,348
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,783,252
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               327,817
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  326,964
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,836)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                15,127
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,460
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,036)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,255)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,219
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,219
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DEAN HAROLD CURRY, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-00404-WS-N 

 ) 

STATE OF ALABAMA,et al., ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

 ORDER 

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issue 

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. '636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this 

court. It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for 

failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's order. 

DONE this 24th day of August, 2010. 

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 1:09-cv-00404-WS-N Document 18 Filed 08/24/10 Page 1 of 1
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1573 

To require the Secretary of Education to accept certain documentation from 

the Department of Defense as proof of employment for purposes of 

the public service loan forgiveness program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2023 

Mr. CONNOLLY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Education to accept certain 

documentation from the Department of Defense as proof 

of employment for purposes of the public service loan 

forgiveness program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPAYMENT PLAN FOR PUBLIC SERVICE EM4 PLOYEES. 

5 Section 455(m) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

6 (20 U.S.C. 1087e) is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1573 IH

1 ‘‘(5) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTA2 TION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.—In 

3 determining the eligibility of a borrower for loan for4 giveness under this subsection, the Secretary of 

5 Education— 

6 ‘‘(A) shall accept a DD Form 214 sub7 mitted by the borrower as proof of the bor8 rower’s employment in the position indicated on 

9 such form during the time period indicated on 

10 such form; and 

11 ‘‘(B) shall not require a borrower who sub12 mits a DD Form 214 to submit a separate em13 ployment certification form as proof of the bor14 rower’s employment in such position during 

15 such time period.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BYRONELL M. WELLS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 05-0356-CG-D

)

J. C. GILES, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this petition be and is hereby 

DISMISSED as time-barred.

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2006.

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00356-CG-M Document 21 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Rule 3 provides: “A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”

- 1 - 10cv1660-WQH-NLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLIE JEAN FORD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1660-WQH-NLS

ORDER

vs.

CENTRAL LOAN ADMINISTRATION

& REPORTING, a/k/a CENLAR;

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, a/k/a

OCWEN; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a/k/a

MERS,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On August 9, 2010, Plaintiff Billie Jean Ford, proceeding pro se, initiated this action

by filing a “Complaint Seeking: Emergency Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary

Injunction; Monetary Damages; Statutory Damages; Punitive Damages; Injunctive Relief;

Declaratory Relief” (“Complaint”). (Doc. # 1). The Court construes the Complaint to be both

a complaint pursuant to Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure1

 and a motion for

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 65 provides:

The court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.

...

Case 1:11-cv-00017-WS-C Document 2 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 10cv1660-WQH-NLS

The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice

to the adverse party or its attorney only if: 

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly

show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will

result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in

opposition; and 

(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to

give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1) & (b)(1).

The Complaint contains no certificate of service or other indication that any Defendant

has been served with a copy of the Complaint. Plaintiff has failed to “certif[y] in writing any

efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

65(b)(1); see also Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006)

(“The stringent restrictions imposed by Rule 65 on the availability of ex parte temporary

restraining orders reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of

court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted

both sides of a dispute.”) (quotation omitted). To the extent the Complaint seeks a temporary

restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction, the Complaint fails to comply with the

requirements of Rule 65.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for temporary restraining order and

preliminary injunction is DENIED without prejudice. (Doc. #1).

DATED: August 11, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00017-WS-C Document 2 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2
[Exhibit 32.1]

                    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 Annual Report of BF Acquisition Group
V,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period  ending
April  30,  2002  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 Company.

Dated: June 16, 2004

                                   /s/ William Colucci
                                   ------------------------------
                                   William Colucci, President
                                   BF Acquisition Group V, Inc.
Exhibit 32.2











CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned, Anthony J. Miceli, Chief Financial Officer of United
Capital Corp., (the “Company”), does hereby certify, with respect to the Annual
Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2007 (the
“Report”) 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.








Dated:                      April
25, 2008





By:
                  /s/ Anthony J.
  MiceliAnthony
      J. Miceli
                      Chief
      Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROGER LYNN MEADOWS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0670-WS-M

A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, :

et al.,

:

Defendants.

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DONE this 23rd day of March, 2006.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00670-WS-M Document 15 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

                         THE MONARCH CEMENT COMPANY
                         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 Annual Report of The Monarch Cement Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated
below, hereby certifies 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 Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to The Monarch Cement Company and will be retained by The
Monarch Cement Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated:  March 14, 2005

                                         /S/ Walter H. Wulf, Jr.
                                        Walter H. Wulf, Jr.
                                        President and
                                        Chairman of the Board
#### Marvin L. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; Civil Service Commissioner for Charleston Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-6513.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 29, 2001.

Marvin L. Smith, pro se. Gary Edward Pullin, Theresa Marlene Kirk, Pullin, Knopf, Fowler & Flanagan, Charleston, WV, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Marvin L. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil action filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

*188Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, *see*Fed. R.App .P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R-App.P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed.RApp.P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on June 21, 2000. Smith’s notice of appeal was filed on March 28, 2001. Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Great Lakes Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Rogers, Chief Financial Officer, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 Company for the periods presented therein.

August 9, 2006

| |                                                                                     | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | /s/ Michael J. Rogers                                                               | 
| | Michael J. Rogers                                                                   | 
| | Executive Vice President
	and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)







1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SEAN NETTLES, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00778-KD-B

SAM COCHRAN, et al, :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issue

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this court. 

It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to

prosecute and to obey the Court's order.

DONE this 16h day of April, 2010.

 s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00778-KD-B Document 7 Filed 04/19/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND RETAINED EARNINGS, THE CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-K
FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,736
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,193
<INVENTORY>                                     14,637
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,770
<PP&E>                                          81,020
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,605
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,762
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,878
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,716
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,306
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,762
<SALES>                                        173,202
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               173,202
<CGS>                                          133,175
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,254
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    79
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 129
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,994)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,988)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,006)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (2,816)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,822)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.38)
        

</TABLE>