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

According to *Demergers*v. *Kruger,*60 *Ga.*100, *the court*erred in rendering a final judgment dismissing the application. The case should have been remanded to the ordinary for a new hearing.

July 30, 1894.

*Judgment reversed in part, and in part affirmed.*

*Certiorari.*Before Judge Henry. Walker superior court. August term, 1893.

This was a proceeding before the ordinary, under the code, §788, to compel the removal of a gate from an alleged private way established by prescription. On conflicting evidence the ordinary found in favor of the applicant; and on *certiorari*this judgment was reversed, the application dismissed, and the private way denied.

*698Lumpkin & Shattuck and B. M. W. Glenn, for plaintiff. Copeland & Jackson, for defendant.
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50808

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CESAR VIZCAINO-AMARO, also

known as Ricardo Vizcaino,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-164-ALL-PRM

--------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Cesar VizcainoAmaro raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a

prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense, and by United

States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir. 2004), petition

for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263), which held

that Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), does not
No. 04-50808

-2-

apply to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF 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 Annual Report of Avro Energy Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mike P. Kurtanjek,
Chief Financial Officer 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
15th day of April, 2010.


/s/ Mike P. Kurtanjek
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In the Matter of: DOCTORS

MARKETING GROUP, INC.,

 Debtor,

JEFF HOLMES,

 Appellant,

 v.

FRONTLINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATES,

INC., a California corporation,

 Appellee.

No. 10-55499

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-07727-GW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JUL 11 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-55499

Jeff Holmes appeals pro se from the district court’s order reversing the

bankruptcy court’s decision and vacating the judgment as void for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de

novo, Sea Hawk Seafood, Inc. v. Alaska (In re Valdez Fisheries Dev. Assoc.), 439

F.3d 545, 547 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

Contrary to Holmes’s contention, the bankruptcy court did not have

jurisdiction over this proceeding because the outcome would have no effect on the

estate being administered in bankruptcy. See Fietz v. Great W. Sav. (In re Feitz),

852 F.2d 455, 457 (9th Cir. 1988) (bankruptcy courts have “related to” jurisdiction

over a civil proceeding only when “‘the outcome of the proceeding could

conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy’”

(citation omitted)); see also Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)

(“[S]ubject matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court’s power to hear a case,

can never be forfeited or waived.” (citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1  -  Consent Letter of Moore & Associates, Chartered

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED
  ACCOUNTANTS AND ADVISORS
  ------------------------
     PCAOB REGISTERED


       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
       --------------------------------------------------------


We consent to the use, in the statement on Form 10KSB of Political
Calls, Inc. (A Development Stage Company), of our report dated
February 22, 2008 on our audit of the financial statements of
Political Calls, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) as of December 31,
2007 and December 31, 2006, and the related statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ending December 31,
2007 and December 31, 2006, and August 23, 2006 (Inception) to
December 31, 2007, and the reference to us under the caption "Experts."


/s/ Moore & Associates, Chartered
---------------------------------
    Moore & Associates Chartered
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    March 28, 2008


             2675 S. Jones Blvd. Suite 109, Las Vegas, NV 89146
                     (702)253-7499 Fax (702)253-7501

<PAGE>
EX-35.2
(logo)EMC
Mortgage Corporation
Proven Performance

ITEM 1123 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION

I, Mark T. Novachek and Michelle Viner as Officers of EMC Mortgage Corporation
("EMC") as Master Servicer pursuant to the Bear Stearns ARM Trust 2007-1 (the
"Agreement") hereby certify that:

1. A review of EMC Master Servicing activities during the period from and
   including February 1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the
   "Reporting Period") and EMC's Master Servicing performance under the
   Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, EMC Master Servicing has
   fulfilled all of its obligation under, the Agreement in all material respects
   throughout the Reporting Period in all material respects.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 14th
day of March 2008.

/s/ Mark T. Novachek
Mark T. Novachek
Senior Vice President


/s/ Michelle Viner
Michelle Viner
Manager-Vice President


800 State Highway 121 Bypass, Lewisville, TX 75067-4180
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 293150, Lewisville, TX 75029-3150

(logo) Member
Mortgage Bankers
Association of America
Exhibit 32

ASPEN
EXPLORATION CORPORATIONCertification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

To
my knowledge: the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended March
31, 2006, containing financial statements for the quarter then ended, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934;
and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aspen
Exploration Corporation for the periods presented.

May 22, 2006

| | /s/   
Robert A. Cohan Robert A. Cohan,
Chief Executive Officer,Chief Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   8-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         433,844
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,070,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,131,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,927,690
<PP&E>                                       4,037,218
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,837,397
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              68,765,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,740,036
<BONDS>                                     33,963,342
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       225,767
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,775,142
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                68,765,535
<SALES>                                      5,545,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,616,443
<CGS>                                        3,979,577
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,979,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               692,083
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             693,537
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (497,585)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (297,002)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (373,796)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (373,796)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.02)
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFP Imaging Corporation
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report"),
I, David Vozick, Co-Chief Executive Officer 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 results of operation of
          the Company.


/s/       David Vozick


David Vozick,
Chairman of the Board
(Co-Principal Executive Officer)
February 12, 2003


                                       18
<PAGE>
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(a)
OR RULE 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Inter-Atlantic Financial, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and
 c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ D. James DarasD. James Daras, Chief Financial Officer
Summary of Executive Compensation



 Exhibit 10.19 
 Summary of Executive Officer Compensation 
 The following named executive officers of ABIOMED, Inc.
are at will employees of ABIOMED and have not entered into a formal employment agreement with ABIOMED. The current understanding between each employee and ABIOMED with respect to the employee’s compensation is as follows: 
  

									
	 Name
	  	Base salary	  	Bonus target
for fiscal
2008
	 Dr. Karim Benali
	  	$	  174,624	  		  	$	75,000
	 Andrew Greenfield
	  	$	163,710	  		  	$	50,000
	 Christopher D. Macdonald
	  	$	199,614	  		  	$	100,000

 These officers are also eligible to receive grants of stock options and other awards at the discretion of
ABIOMED’s Compensation Committee. 
 We have an employment agreement with our Chief Executive Officer, Michael R. Minogue, that sets
forth the terms of his employment. Mr. Minogue’s current salary is $351,900 and his target bonus for fiscal 2008 is $351,900. We have an offer letter with our Chief Financial Officer, Daniel J. Sutherby, that sets forth the terms of his
employment. Mr. Sutherby’s current salary is $229,500 and his target bonus for fiscal 2008 is $100,000.
#### In the Matter of Monroe County Department of Human Services—CSEU, on Behalf of Wanda G., Appellant, v Derrell M., Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 855]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Gail A. Donofrio, J.), entered April 11, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5. The order denied the objections of petitioner to the order of the Support Magistrate.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is reinstated and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings on the petition.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to article 5 of the Family Court Act, petitioner appeals from an order denying its objections to the order of the Support Magistrate. We conclude that Family Court erred in determining that it lacked personal jurisdiction over respondent because the affidavit of service did not include the last name of the person of “suitable age and discretion” who was served with process (§ 525 [a]; *see Dunn v Pallett,*42 AD3d 807, 808-809 [2007]; *Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. v Evans,*170 AD2d 225, 227-228 [1991]; *Plycon Transp. Group, LLC v Kirschenbaum,*36 Misc 3d 1232[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51576[U], *3-5 [2012]; *see also*CPLR 308 [2]). We further conclude that in any event the court erred in sua sponte dismissing the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction *(see Buckeye Retirement Co., L.L.C., Ltd. v Lee,*41 AD3d 183, 183-184 [2007]). We therefore reverse the order and reinstate the petition, and we remit the matter to Family Court for further proceedings thereon. Present — Scudder, PJ., Peradotto, Garni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                      20,204,000
<SECURITIES>                                21,074,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,888,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   500,000
<INVENTORY>                                 16,263,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            72,499,000
<PP&E>                                     120,411,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              88,194,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             105,052,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       37,583,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   123,257,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (69,084,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               105,052,000
<SALES>                                     93,002,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            93,002,000
<CGS>                                       56,192,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               56,192,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             998,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,746,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   430,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,316,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,316,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO****SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Robert S. Prather, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Bull Run Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures asof May 31, 2005 (the “Evaluation Date”) and presented in this quarterly report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date; and  c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s first fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.     Date: September 12, 2005       Signed: /s/ ROBERT S. PRATHER, JR.         Robert S. Prather, Jr.    President and Chief Executive Officer
NO. 07-04-0322-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A JUNE 23, 2004

______________________________ TOMMY HEATH, JR, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTE R COUNTY; NO. 45,31 6-D; HONO RABLE D ON EMERS ON, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION
Follo wing t he trial court’s order of revocation of community supervision and reformation of

sentence, on October 14, 2003, appellant Tommy Heath, Jr. was sentenced to nine years con finement for robbery. Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial.1 Appellant may ha v e recourse by filing a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals for co nsideratio n of an out-of -time appea l. Tex. Code Cri m. Proc. A nn. art. 1 1.07 (Vernon Supp . 2004). 2 However, his notice of appeal was not filed until May 24, 2004. We dismiss for want of jurisdict ion.
When a timely motion for new trial is filed, a notice of appeal is due to befiled w ith the trial court clerk within 90 days after the day sentence is imposed. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2 ). The Rul es of App ellate P rocedureprovidefor a 15- day exte nsion in which to file the notice if it is accompanied by a motion for extension of time. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. This Court is without jurisdiction to address the merits of an appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss an appeal without a timely filed notice of appeal. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2 d 208, 21 0 (Tex.C r.App. 199 8). Appellant’s sentence was imposed on October 14, 2003, and fol low i ng his timely motion for new trial, the deadline in which to file his notice of ap peal was extende d to January 12, 2004. The notice filed on May 24, 2004, i s beyond the deadline, including the 15-day extension period, and thus, does not in voke our jurisdiction. Accordingly, the purported appeal is dismissed for wan t of jurisdiction. 1
Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish.