alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant, v Habitat Revival, LLC, et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 18, 2012;

decided August 30, 2012

*991Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           49412
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1458601
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1508013
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1508013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1508013
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  2880
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 14972
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12092)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (12092)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (12092)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.88)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21


                             Base Ten Systems, Inc.
                           Subsidiaries of Registrant


The following are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Registrant:


                                                   State or Jurisdiction
    Name                                             of Organization
   -----                                            ---------------

Base Ten Software, Inc.                               New Jersey (a)

Base Ten FlowStream, Inc.                             New Jersey (a)

Base Ten Systems, Ltd.                                United Kingdom (a)

Base Ten Software, Ltd.                               Ireland (a)

BTS Software GmbH                                     Germany (a)

Base Ten Systems NV                                   Belgium (a)

Base Ten Aerospace and Communications, Inc.           New Jersey (b)

Base Ten of Canada, Ltd.                              Canada (b)

Base Ten Investment, Co.                              Delaware (b)

Base Ten International Sales, Ltd.                    Jamaica (b)



(a) Financial  statements  included  in  Consolidated  Financial  Statements  of
    Registrant

(b) Dormant
,, 1 qoq -03 

'::£_~:7.-<146-r _ ...... -------~--: _______ ~ __ ;J-'8::_~ot5 ___ ~~-

--==:J.e~ Gut;(~~~~ .. ··--· ---~--------- -- _flta~_, __ JjG_ ______ Z8:21 (_:-__~-32~------ . _ -~--~----

----- -----~------------

-------,----· ----------- ---~------------------ --------------------------------

RECEIVEDIN-------------~-----=--------.-----------~----

_______________ ,._· ~l~~~ SF" C21MIN_~~ APPEALS _ ·-----~-------. _______ _ .. ;

--~--------_:_ _______ _fE_ItLl 2Jll5__ _______________ ----·-------------~- _ 

Abel Acos~a, Clerk
#### Gail Cave, Appellant, v Riverbend Homeowners Association, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Submitted February 25, 2013;

decided April 2, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Morgan v. Menard , 352

- 6

- 17 Wncv ( Teachout, J., Oct. 27, 2017).

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Washington Unit Docket No. 352

- 6

- 17 Wncv

MATTHEW J. MORGAN

Plaintiff

v.

LISA MENARD et al.

Defendant s

DECISION

The State ’s Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff

– Inmate Matthew Morgan initiated this case seeking Rule 75 review of a

disciplinary infraction. He asked the court to expunge the violation and award him $60 for the

lost opportunity to work in the facility. Sometime thereafter, presumably after the filing of the

complaint, th e DOC voluntarily expunged Mr. Morgan’s disciplinary violation. The State then

filed a motion to dismiss because the matter had become moot, noting that an award of damages

is not appropriately within the scope of a Rule 75 claim. Mr. Morgan appears to a ccept that the

claim for damages is impermissible in this proceeding. However, he argues that the court should

not dismiss this case without clearly ordering that there can be no collateral consequences of the

conviction now that it is expunged.

There c an be no doubt that any challenge to the disciplinary violation is moot because the

DOC voluntarily expunged it.

An award of damages in the first instance is inconsistent with the court’s Rule 75

authority. See V.R.C.P. 75(d) (“The judgment of the court shall affirm, reverse, or modify the

decision under review as provided by law.”).

The court declines to retain jurisdiction over a moot case due to collateral consequences

that have not been identified , remain completely abstract, and may never come t o fruition

. “ It is

well

- settled that this Court has jurisdiction to decide only ‘actual controversies arising between

adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction.’” Chase v. State , 2008 VT 107,

¶ 11, 184 Vt. 430 (2008) (citation omitted) . Here, there is no identified collateral consequence so

there can be no controversy over one. If one should become apparent in the future, Mr. Morgan

may address it at that time.ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the State’s motion to dismiss is granted.

Dated at Montpelier , Vermont this ____ day of October 201 7

.

_____________________________ Mary Miles Teachout,

Superior Judge
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            BKF CAPITAL 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 Annual Report of BKF Capital Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J.
Clarke Gray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 (including subsections (a) (b) and (c) thereof), as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (4) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

                                                  /s/ J. CLARKE GRAY
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                      J. Clarke Gray
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

March 23, 2006
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-A  ("Issuer") for the period
ending  September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 14th day of November, 2003.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-A
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-A and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-A and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### GAUMONT v. WARNER BROS. PICTURES, Inc.

District Court, S. D. New York.

May 19, 1941.

*46Benjamin Jaffe, of New York City, for plaintiff.

R. W. Perkins, of New York City (Joseph D. Karp, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

Motion by defendant to strike out plaintiff’s jury demand and placing the case upon the nonjury calendar.

The original complaint herein was served on February 11th, 1941. Issue was joined by the service of an answer on April 18th. Ten days later the plaintiff served, by mail, the demand for a jury.

The motion papers now before me were served on May 1st. On May 8th, the plaintiff served a purported amended complaint.

The motion is opposed by the defendant on the ground that the original complaint states a claim for equitable relief, although alleging also a claim for damages, and that under the cases the plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial. I think the defendant’s contention is clearly correct! Sklarsky v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., D.C., 47 F.2d 662; Bellavance v. Plastic-Craft Novelty Co., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 37; Williams v. Collier, D.C., 32 F.Supp. 321.

The plaintiff’s response to the above, however, is that the amended complaint states an action at law and nothing else, and that any doubts as to his rights to a jury are resolved by the service of such complaint.

The plaintiff is in error. From the recital above it appears that his so-called amended complaint was served 20 days after issue was joined by the service of an answer to the original complaint. It further appears that such amendment was made without leave of the court or consent of the defendant, as required by Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, which limits a plaintiff’s right to amend his complaint as of course to a time prior to the service of the answer.

Although amendments are “freely given when justice so requires” F.R.C.P. 15(a), the rule is specific that leave of the court must be obtained. That has not been sought here and the pleading, therefore, is without legal effect.

On the basis of the original complaint, which stands as the only one in this case, the defendant’s motion is granted, the jury demand is stricken and the case ordered placed upon the nonjury calendar. This disposition, however, is without prejudice to the plaintiff to seek leave to file an amended complaint if he be so advised.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 1 4259 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D .C. Docket No. 1:11

- cv - 02812

- MHS

LEXON INSURANCE COMPANY , Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus COMMUNITY & SOUTHERN BANK , Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ ( June 29, 2015 ) Before HULL , ROSENBAUM , and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER C URIAM: Lexon Insurance Company (“Lexon”) appeals the district court’s order denying reconsideration of Lexon’s request for attorney ’ s fees pursuant to Rule 11

Case: 14-14259 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Page: 1 of 32 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . We review the district court’s denial of reconsiderat ion for an abuse of discretion. Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. , 225 F.3d 1208, 1216 (11th Cir. 2000)

. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(E), “[m]otions for reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice.” Rather, such motions are only appropriate when “absolutely necessary” to present: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) an intervening development or change in controlling la w; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or fact. Bryant v. Murphy , 246 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1258

- 59 (N.D. Ga. 2003). Lexon did not advance any of the foregoing grounds for reconsideration either in this Court or the district court, and as such, Lex on’s appeal is meritless.
E ven assuming, arguendo , that Lexon is asserting clear error under Rule 7.2(E) , we are not persuaded. As the district court observed, Lexon seeks reimbursement of over $10,000 in attorney’s fees for more than 50 hours spent researching and drafting a 7

- page response to Community & Southern Bank’s motion . Lexon’s response merely pointed out the Bank’s obvious failure to comply with Rule 11’s requir ements. The district court denied this request a s “grossly excessive.” A lthough we have not decided the issue, several other circuits have held that district courts do not abuse their discretion by wholly denying

Case: 14-14259 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Page: 2 of 33 exorbitant fee applications when an award of fees is permissive, as in the instant

case . Andrews v. United States , 122 F.3d 1367, 1375 (11th Cir. 1997); s ee Budget
Rent

- A

- Car Sys., Inc. v. Consolidated Equity LLC , 428 F.3d 717, 718 (7th Cir. 2005); Fair Housing Council of Greater Wash. v. Landow , 999 F.2d 92, 96

- 97 (4th Cir. 1993) ; Lewis v. Kendrick , 944 F.2d 949, 956 (1st Cir. 1991). Because it is at “at least arguable” that the district court was entitled to deny Lexon’s request outright , the court did not abuse its discretion

. See United Sta tes v. Battle , 272 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1358 (N.D. Ga. 2003) ( “An error is not clear and obvious if the legal issues are at least arguable.” ) (internal quotation omitted). AFFIRMED. Case: 14-14259 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Page: 3 of 3
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 700054

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### CARLETON M. MIELKE Hospitalman Apprentice (E

- 2 ), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Captain Robert J. Crow, JAGC, USN. Convening Authority: C ommand er, Navy Region Southeast, Naval

Air Station, Jacksonville, FL

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutena nt Commander

George W. Lucier, JAGC, USN

. For Appellant : C ommander Donald R. Ostrom
, JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 24 A ugust 2017

_________________________ Before H UTCHISON , F ULTON , and R USSELL , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). The supplemental court

- martial order will reflect that the appellant is credited with having served 126 days of pretrial confinement.

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32

 

ITRONICS INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Itronics Inc. (the Company") on Form10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 15, 2004 (the "Report") each of the undersigned, in thecapacities and on the dates 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, thatto his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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.

 

 

Date: November 13, 2004                      /S/JOHN W. WHITNEY
                                             JohnW. Whitney

                                             ChiefExecutive Officer

                                             ChiefFinancial Officer

 

34
IPVA-OLD 485b ltr 071913










July 19, 2013


VIA EDGAR


Office of Insurance Products
Division of Investment Management
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20549-4644




RE:    Principal Life Insurance Company Separate Account B
Principal Investment Plus Variable Annuity 
Registration Statement on Form N-4
File No.’s: 333-116220 and 811-02091


I am Counsel for the above-referenced Registrant, and have reviewed the attached post-effective amendment which is being filed pursuant to Rule 485(b) under the Securities Act of 1933.  I hereby represent that the amendment does not contain disclosures which would render it ineligible to become effective pursuant to Rule 485(b).


Sincerely, 




/s/ Doug Hodgson


Doug Hodgson
Counsel
711 High Street
Des Moines, Iowa 503092-0300
(515) 362-2384 (office)
(866) 496-6527 (facsimile)
hodgson.doug@principal.com


Enclosure
EXHIBIT 23.2


                          Independent Auditors' Consent





The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Base Ten Systems, Inc.
Trenton, New Jersey 08619

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statements  No.  33-89712,  No.  33-60454,  No.  33-55752,  No.  333-00721;  No.
333-21925;  No. 333-59881,  No. 333-59883,  No. 333-59885 and Amendment No. 1 to
Registration Statement No. 2-84451 of Base Ten Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries on
Form  S-8 and the  Registration  Statement  No.  33-89710,  No.  333-00719,  No.
333-06317,  No. 333-21923,  No. 333-31335,  No. 333-34159, No. 333-46095 and No.
333-70535 of Base Ten Systems,  Inc. and  Subsidiaries on Form S-3 of our report
dated February 6, 1998, appearing in this annual report on Form 10-K/A-1 of Base
Ten Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended October 31, 1997.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey
April 29, 1999
96-2654.

#### Cambridge Arms, Ltd. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 94-P-1129. On motion to dismiss of Hamilton County Auditor. Motion denied.

Cook, J., dissents.
Order entered July 23, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00307
- CV
THIEN AN VO , Appellant

V. HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT , Appellee On Appeal from th e 133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020
- 72816

O RDER The reporter’s record in this appeal is currently due. By motion filed July 22, 2021 , appellant requests we declare her indigent so that the court reporter responsible fo r the record will file the record. Appellant notes she filed a statement of inability to afford costs in the trial court and was allowed to proceed there without payment of costs. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 145. She explains , however, that the court reporter ha s nonetheless asked for an order showing she is indigent.Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 , a party who has filed a statement

of inability to afford costs cannot be required to pay costs unless ordered to do so. See id. Because nothing before the Court reflects appellant has been ordered to pay costs, we GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDER Darlene Stein, Official Court Reporter for the 133 rd Judicial District Court, to file the reporter’s record without payment of costs. The record shall be fi led no later than August 9,
2021

. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Stein and the parties.
/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE