alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11674.

#### Elmgren *v.*Murrin.

Luke, J.

1. The right to open and conclude the argument to a jury is an important legal right, and if it" be improperly denied, its denial demands the grant of a new trial. In order for the defendant to obtain this legal right where a prima facie case for the plaintiff is admitted, it must be shown that the right was claimed before the testimony upon both sides had closed. See *Jones*v. *Fourth National Bank,*20 *Ga. App.*219 (1) (92 S. E. 964), and cases cited. In this case it was not *251error to deny to the defendant the right to open and conclude the argument to the jury.

Decided January 28, 1921.

Trover; from city court of Savannah — Judge Rourke. May 22, 1920.

*Robert L. Golding, H. Mercer Jordan,*for plaintiff in error.

*Bouhan & Herzog,*contra.

2 . There is no error of law that requires a reversal of the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
## NO. 12

- 10

- 00 244

- C V

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LUIS GONZALEZ MEDELLIN , APPELLANT ' APPEAL FROM THE 114 TH

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS, ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS APPELLEE MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated, and attempts to appeal the order to withdraw court

costs from his inmate trust account. As pertinent here, Texas Ru le of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the trial court enters an appealable order. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a)(1). The trial court entered the complained of order on April 2 0, 2010. Therefore, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to have been filed on or before May 20, 2010. However, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until August 2, 2010, and did not file a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal as permitted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3 (appellate court may extend time for filing notice of appeal if, within fifteen days after deadline for filing notice of appeal, appellant files notice of appeal in trial co urt and motion complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) in appellate court). On September 20, 2010, this court notified Appellant that his notice of appeal was untimely and that there was no timely motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal as permitted by rule 26.3. Appellant was further informed that the appeal would be dismissed unless, on or before September 30, 2010, the information filed in this appeal was amended to show the jurisdiction of this court. The deadli ne has passed, and Appellant has neither shown the jurisdiction of this court nor otherwise responded to its September 20, 2010 notice.2 Because this court has no authority to allow the late filing of a notice of appeal except as provided by rule 26.3, the appeal must be dismissed. See Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. All pending motions are overruled as m oot. Opinion delivered October 6 , 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
| Participant      Name:      |   |                                                            |
|-----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |                                                            |
| Number      of Stock Units: |   | (1)                                                             |
|                        |   |                                                            |
| Vesting      Schedule:      |   | See      vesting set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto(1) |
|                        |   |                                                            |
| Award      Date:            |   |                                                            |

----

----

----

----

| INTERNATIONAL      RECTIFIER             |   | PARTICIPANT                |
|------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
| CORPORATION, a Delaware      corporation |   |                       |
|                                     |   |                       |
| By:                                      |   |                       |   |
|                                     |   | Signature                  |
| Print      Name:                         |   |                       |   |
|                                     |   | Address                    |
| Its:                                     |   |                       |   |
|                                     |   | City,      State, Zip Code |
|                                     |   |                       |   |   |

----

|   |   | Applicable      Stock Units: |   |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |   |                         |   |   |
|   |   | Applicable      Stock Units: |   |   |

----
Order entered March 14, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00565-CR

No. 05-21-00566-CR

HENRY LEE CAREY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F19-55133-H & F19-10416-H

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s March 9, 2022 fourth motion for an extension 

of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief 

received with the motion filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . P D
- 1 4 5 9
- 1 3

D A M I A N R I C A R D O F L O R E S , A p p e l l a n t

v . T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W F R O M T H E F O U R T E E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

H A R R I S C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N

A p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f p o s s e s s i o n o f a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e a n d s e n t e n c e d t o 2 0
y e a r s i n p r i s o n . O n a p p e a l , h e a r g u e d , a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t
t o s u p p o r t t h e $ 9 0 5 i n c o u r t c o s t s a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t h i m i n t h e j u d g m e n t

. T h e C o u r t o f
A p p e a l s a g r e e d , r e l y i n g o n i t s o p i n i o n i n J o h n s o n v
. S t a t e , 3 8 9 S

. W

. 3 d 5 1 3 ( T e x . A p p . –F L O R E S

- 2

H o u s t o n [ 1 4 D i s t

. ] 2 0 1 2 )

. F l o r e s v
. S t a t e , N o . 1 4

- 1 2

- 0 0 6 2 3

- C R , 2 0 1 3 T e x . A p p . L E X I S

t h
1 2 2 4 8 ( T e x . A p p . – H o u s t o n [ 1 4 D i s t

. ] O c t o b e r 1 , 2 0 1 3 )

. t h
T h e S t a t e h a s f

i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w o f t h i s d e c i s i o n . W e r e c e n t l y h a n d e d d o w n o u r o p i n i o n i n J o h n s o n v
. S t a t e , N o . P D

- 0 1 9 3

- 1 3 , 2 0 1 4 T e x . C r i m . A p p . L E X I S 2 4 0 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 4 ) , i n w h i c h w e s e t f o r t h a r o a d m a p f

o r

r e s o l v i n g q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g c o u r t c o s t s . S e e a l s o C a r d e n a s v
. S t a t e , N o . P D

- 0 7 3 3

- 1 3 , 2 0 1 4
T e x . C r i m . A p p . L E X I S 2 3 6 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 4 )

. The Court of Appea ls in the instant case did not have the benef it of our opinion in Johnson

. Acc ording ly , we g rant the State’s petition for discretionar y revie w, vacate the judgme nt of the Court of Appea ls, and rema

nd this case to the Court of Appea ls in light of our opinion in Johnson

. We also this day ref

use Appellant’s petition for discre tionary revie w in this case. No motion for r ehea ring will be enter

tained. Deliver ed: April 16, 2014 Publis h
SCPR-22-0000600 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

IN RE BARBARA JEAN WONG, ALSO KNOWN AS BARBARA UPHOUSE WONG,

Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN IN GOOD STANDING (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition to resign from the practice law in the State of Hawai # i , filed by attorney Barbara Uphouse Wong, 1 pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i (RSCH), but to retain the paper license as a memento, as authorized by RSCH Rule 1.10(b), and the affidavits submitted in support thereof, we conclude that Petitioner Wong has fully complied with the requirements of RSCH Rule 1.10. Therefore,

1 We note that, according to materials in the record at Docket 1:5-6, attorney Wong changed her name on February 17, 2016 to Barbara Uphouse Wong, from other iterations of her name, including Barbara Jean Wong, the name employed in the caption. Barbara Uphouse Wong is the name which appears on her license to practice law, so we grant the petition using that name. Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPR-22-0000600 27-OCT-2022 02:09 PM Dkt. 4 OGPIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition to resign is

granted. Petitioner Wong may retain the paper license as a
memento. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g), that the Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and record requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the name of Petitioner Wong, attorney number 8004, from the roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai # i, effective with the filing of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, October 27, 2022. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
Exhibit 32.2

BULOVA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.

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 Bulova Technologies Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John D. Stanton, Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ John D. StantonJohn D. StantonPrincipal Financial Officer
December 30, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule Contains Summary Financial Information Extracted From The
Condensed Financial Statements As Of June 30, 1997 And For the  Six
Months Then Ended And Is Qualified In Its Entirety By Reference To
Such Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              47
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       14
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      61
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,584
<BONDS>                                            525
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,049)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        61
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   106
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  83
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     22
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 22
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        22
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       22
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JANET CHAMPION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0206-CG-M

)

AUTO-OWNERS INSRUANCE 

COMPANY, et al.,

)

)

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This cause is before the court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Dismissal of All 

Claims Against Defendant Gough (Doc. 8).

Upon due consideration, the motion is hereby GRANTED, and the plaintiff 

claims against said defendant are DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Each party shall bear her or its own costs. 

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of June, 2014.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 In light of the foregoing, defendant Gough’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) is deemed to be 

MOOT.

Case 1:14-cv-00206-CG-M Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 13.1


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 Internet Gold-Golden Lines Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Doron Turgeman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/Doron Turgeman*


Doron Turgeman


Chief Executive Officer




April 30, 2012




*           The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the Company’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
11395, 11403.

#### Ricker *v.*Lowry National Bank; and *vice versa.*

Stephens, J.

1. In a suit against the maker by the transferee of a series of promissory notes falling due consecutively, some of the notes appearing on the face to have matured and the others appearing not to have matured, where the defendant admits the execution of the notes and the indebtedness represented by them, and does not deny the allegation in the petition that the entire series is due by virtue of the terms of a collateral agreement between the maker and the payee which provides that the entire series shall become due upon default by the maker in payment of other notes in the series when due, but disputes the title of the plaintiff in the notes and pleads a failure of consideration and breach of warranty, a verdict for the plaintiff is demanded, in the absence of any evidence to sustain the defendant’s plea.

2. Where it does not appear what evidence was offered by the defendant in support of the plea of failure of consideration and breach of warranty, an assignment of error that the court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to prove by a named witness that the consideration of the notes had failed and that the ruling of the court in excluding the evidence prevented the defendant from establishing his defense presents nothing for consideration, where neither the evidence nor the nature of the evidence is set out.

3. There being no evidence that the plaintiff transferee had not acquired the notes bona fide for value and without notice of any defense by the maker, and the maker’s plea of failure of consideration and breach of warranty being predicated upon an alleged contract between him and the payee, and there being no evidence as to this contract, and it not appearing from any of the assignments of error in the motion for a new *329trial that such contract was offered in evidence, none of the assignments of error in the motion for a new trial show ground for a reversal, since they except only to the failure of the trial judge to admit testimony tending to show that the consideration had failed and that the warranties contained in the contract had been breached.

Decided February 24, 1921.

Attachment; from Ben Hill superior court — Judge Gower. February 13, 1920.

*A. J. & J. O. McDonald, Vessie Jones,*for Ricker.

*Wall & Grantham, Bamttel Kassewitz, J. H. Porter,*contra.

4. It was not error to overrule the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed on the main bill of exceptions; cross-bill dismissed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Sill, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1862 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1862

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, 
      Inquiries and Investigations Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, 
      Inquiries and Investigations Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR SENATE, INQUIRIES 
              AND INVESTIGATIONS EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Senate, Inquiries and 
Investigations Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$133,265,000.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1893 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of Representatives, Salaries and Expenses of Interparliamentary Affairs for fiscal 

year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House 

of Representatives, Salaries and Expenses of Interparliamentary Affairs for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SALARIES 

5 AND EXPENSES OF INTERPARLIAMENTARY 

6 AFFAIRS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for House of Representatives, Salaries and Expenses 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1893 IH

1 of Interparliamentary Affairs for fiscal year 2024 may not 

2 exceed $814,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.4

                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                               ANTEON CORPORATION
                            (a Virginia corporation)


To the State Corporation Commission
Commonwealth of Virginia

            The following Articles of Amendments are hereby submitted pursuant
to the provisions of the Virginia Stock Corporation Act (the "VSCA") on behalf
of the corporation hereinafter named.

            1. The name of the corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
"Corporation") is Anteon Corporation.

            2. Article One of the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation
is hereby amended to read in its entirety as set forth below.

            "The name of the corporation is Anteon International Corporation."

            3. The amendment herein provided for was duly adopted on December 6,
2000 by unanimous written consent of the board of directors of the Corporation
in lieu of the board of directors meeting in accordance with the provisions of
the VSCA.

            4. The amendment herein provided for was duly adopted on December 6,
2000 by unanimous written consent of the shareholders of the Corporation in lieu
of the shareholders meeting in accordance with the provisions of the VSCA.

            5. The effective time and date of this Articles of Amendments herein
provided for in the Commonwealth of Virginia is 12:02am on January 1, 2001.

Executed on December 26, 2000

                                    ANTEON CORPORATION


                                    By:
                                        --------------------------------
                                    Name: Joseph Kampf
                                    Title: President and Chief Executive Officer