alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### EDMONDS v. WHITE.

No. 34874.

Dec. 12, 1950.

*225 P. 2d 358.*

R. L. Christian, of Frederick, for plaintiff in error.

Wilson & Wilson, of Frederick, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, J.

The first appeal in this case was disposed of in Edmonds v. White, 203 Okla. 231, 219 P. 2d 1007. This opinion reversed and remanded the cause with directions as follows:

> “The judgment is vacated, with directions to the trial court to hear and determine whether or not there has been a compliance with the Intangible Tax Law. If plaintiff establishes compliance, then judgment should be rendered for the plaintiff. If plaintiff fails to establish compliance with such law, then his action should be dismissed.”

On receipt of the mandate the matter was set for trial, and the evidence discloses without dispute that the plaintiff had complied with the Intangible Tax Law. Notwithstanding the directions of the Supreme Court in the above entitled cause in the first appeal, defendant appeared and objected to any evidence offered by the plaintiff as to compliance with the Intangible Tax Law, moved to strike all the evidence after it was introduced and appealed from the judgment entered for the plaintiff.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the appeal is without merit and for delay only. The motion must be sustained. In McClung v. Harris, 11 Okla. 64, 65 P. 941, it is stated:

> “An appeal will not- be .entertained from a decree entered in a district court or other inferior court in exact accordance with the mandate of this court upon a prior appeal. If such an appeal is taken, this court will examine the decree entered, and, if it conforms to the mandate, dismiss the appeal, with costs, upon application of the adverse party.”

Where upon an examination of the record, the motion to dismiss and the response thereto it appears the appeal is without merit, said appeal will be dismissed. Atkinson v. Shaffer, 187 Okla. 262, 102 P. 2d 943.

The response does not contest the fact that the plaintiff established beyond dispute payment of the intangible property tax and that the judgment was entered in compliance with the mandate of this court. The appeal is without merit and should be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

DAVISON, C. J., ARNOLD, V. C. J., and CORN, GIBSON, LUTTRELL, and HALLEY, JJ., concur.
#### Mahala AULT, Stacie Rhea, Dan Wallace, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants Jerry Miller, Disability Rights Advocates for Technology, Jerry Kerry, et al., Intervenor-Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-15668.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2010.

Christopher A. Pace, Bernard H. Dempsey, Jr., Thomas Wade Young, Dempsey & Associates, P.A., Winter Park, FL, John A. Baker, J. Phillip Krajewski, Springfield, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Kerry Alan Scanlon, Jeremy M. White, Washington, DC, David Ferleger, David Ferleger Law Office, Jenkintown, PA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude for the reasons fully discussed at oral argument that the district court erred in concluding that the named plaintiffs lacked prudential standing. The interests sought to be protected by the named plaintiffs are arguably within the zone of interest protected by 42 U.S.C. § 12182.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings, including *inter alia*a determination as to whether the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class and whether they are adequate representatives of the class.

VACATED and REMANDED.
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I,Grayling Hofer, Chief Accounting Officer and Principal Financial Officer of PowerCold Corporation (the Company) do 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 my knowledge:  1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.  Date: August 18, 2006  /s/Grayling Hofer Grayling Hofer Chief Accounting Officer Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>  0000827086
<NAME> CARLYLE INCOME PLUS, L.P. - II


<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>            MAR-31-2000

<CASH>                               832,123
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                          3,943
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     836,066
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       871,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 54,737
<BONDS>                                    0
<COMMON>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                           816,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         871,295
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      25,694
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      55,925
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (30,231)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (27,619)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                        (27,619)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (1.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (1.22)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**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 Zila, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawrence J. Batina, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies 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/ Lawrence J. Batina

Chief Financial Officer 

June 16, 2003 

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 99.1

                          Independent Auditors' Report

The Partners
Columbia Westmont Associates, L.P.
T/A The Westmont
Marlton, New Jersey

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Columbia Westmont Associates,
L.P. T/A The Westmont (A Limited Partnership) as of December 31, 2004 and 2003
and the related statements of profit and loss, Partners' capital and cash flows
for the year ended December 31, 2004. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Partnership's management. Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of Columbia Westmont Associates,
L.P. T/A The Westmont (A Limited Partnership) as of December 31, 2004 and 2003,
and the results of its operations, changes in its Partners' capital and its cash
flows for the year ended December 31, 2004 in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic financial
statements taken as a whole. The accompanying supplementary information is
presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the
basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing
procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our
opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic
financial statements taken as a whole.

                                           /s/ ASHER & COMPANY, Ltd.
                                           -------------------------

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

January 29, 2005, except for Note I,
  for which the date is March 4, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 168 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 55

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 168

                          [Report No. 103-139]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To designate the Federal building to be constructed between Gay and 
    Market Streets and Cumberland and Church Avenues in Knoxville, 
  Tennessee, as the ``Howard H. Baker, Jr. United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 17, 1993

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                  House Calendar No. 55
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 168

                          [Report No. 103-139]

  To designate the Federal building to be constructed between Gay and 
    Market Streets and Cumberland and Church Avenues in Knoxville, 
  Tennessee, as the ``Howard H. Baker, Jr. United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Duncan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

                             June 17, 1993

                   Additional sponsor: Mr. Traficant

                             June 17, 1993

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the Federal building to be constructed between Gay and 
    Market Streets and Cumberland and Church Avenues in Knoxville, 
  Tennessee, as the ``Howard H. Baker, Jr. United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building to be constructed between Gay and Market 
Streets and Cumberland and Church Avenues in Knoxville, Tennessee, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Howard H. Baker, Jr. United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Howard H. Baker, 
Jr. United States Courthouse''.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1670 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1670

 To restore the 1994 cost-of-living adjustment in the regular military 
   compensation of members of the uniformed services on active duty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 1993

  Mr. Dornan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To restore the 1994 cost-of-living adjustment in the regular military 
   compensation of members of the uniformed services on active duty.

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

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF THE 1994 COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR 
              REGULAR MILITARY COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED 
              SERVICES.

    (a) Restoration of Adjustment.--Effective on January 1, 1994, the 
rates of basic pay, basic allowance for subsistence, and basic 
allowance for quarters of members of the uniformed services on active 
duty for a period of more than 30 days are increased by 2.2 percent.
    (b) Sense of Congress Regarding Source of Funds.--It is the sense 
of Congress that the funds necessary to provide the increase in regular 
military compensation required by subsection (a) should be derived from 
reductions in other programs of the Department of Defense within major 
functional category 050 (National Defense) in the budget of the 
President submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, 
United States Code, for fiscal year 1994.

                                 <all>
```
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

TIME AND DATE:

PLACE:

STATUS:

MATTERS TO BE
CONSIDERED:

CONTACT PERSON
FOR MORE INFO:

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
‘SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON, DC 20004

November 22, 2013

1:00 p.m., Thursday, December 5, 2013

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (entry from
F Street entrance)

Open

The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open
session: United Mine Workers of America on behalf of Franks v.
Emerald Coal Resources, LP, Docket No. PENN 2012-250-D; and
United Mine Workers of America on behalf of Hoy v. Emerald
Coal Resources, LP, Docket No. PENN 2012-251-D (Issues
include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in concluding
that miners’ suspensions for refusing to provide certain safety-
related information to the operator constituted unlawful
discrimination.)

Any person attending this meeting who requires special
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those
needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay /
1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-20637

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT LEE HARTFIELD,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-1842

April 18, 2001

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Lee Hartfield, Texas prisoner # 598534, seeks a

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application for writ of habeas

corpus as successive. In the alternative, Hartfield moves for

authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application,

asserting that his claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness is based

on newly discovered evidence.
2

Hartfield fails to brief the issue whether the district court

erred in dismissing his petition as successive and, therefore, has

waived the only cognizable issue in his appeal. See Hughes v.

Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999) (claims not argued in

the COA application are waived), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1003

(2000); see also Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.

1993) (issues must be properly briefed to be preserved for appeal).

Because Hartfield has failed to show that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the district court erred in dismissing

his petition as successive, his request for a COA is DENIED. See

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

To obtain authorization to file a successive habeas corpus

application, Hartfield must make a prima facie showing that his

claims are based on a new rule of constitutional law, made

retroactive on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was

previously unavailable, or are based on newly discovered evidence

that could not have been discovered earlier with the exercise of

due diligence and would be sufficient to establish by clear and

convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no

reasonable fact finder would have found him guilty. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(2), (3). Hartfield has not made such a showing. His

alternative motion for authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 application therefore is 

D E N I E D.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 25 , 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00582

- CV

GERMAINE JAMES , Appellant
V.
JOSE AGUILERA , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1048608

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This attempted appeal is from an interlocutory order signed by the trial court on July 15, 2014, sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence filed by appellant. On August 28, 2014, we directed the Harris Coun ty District Clerk to file a partial clerk’s record in order that we might determine our jurisdiction. The record has been filed and there is no final appealable judgment. See Kilsby v. Mid

Century Ins. Co. of Tex., No. 14

- 07

- 00981

- CV, 2008 WL 889428 (Tex. App.

–2 Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 3, 2008, no pet.) (memo op.) (dismissing appeal of interlocutory order sustaining challenge to affid avit of inability to pay costs).

On September 25, 2014, notification was transmitted to all partie s of the
court’ s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). In response, a ppellant file d a Motion t o Continu e Appeal and an Amended Motion t o Continue Appeal. Appellant has not demonstrate d that this Court has jurisd iction to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, appellant’s motions are denied and the appeal is ordered dismissed. Further, we deny as moot a ppellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal on another basis.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Brown and Wise

.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT  21

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



Name of Corporation                             State of Incorporation
-------------------                             ----------------------

Clearwater Acquisition Corporation                  Delaware
Lafayette Acquisition Corporation                   Louisiana
Realty Acquisition Corporation                      Delaware
SPIALA Corporation                                  Delaware
SPIANTONIO, Inc.                                    Delaware
SPIAPT, Inc.                                        Alabama
SPIAPTLA, Inc.                                      Delaware
SPIBILE, Inc.                                       Alabama
SPICLIFF, Inc.                                      Delaware
SPICOM, Inc.                                        Alabama
SPICOMLA, Inc.                                      Delaware
SPIDAY, Inc.                                        Delaware
SPIDELA, Inc.                                       Delaware
SPILAF, Inc.                                        Alabama
SPILAKE, Inc.                                       Delaware
SPILAN, Inc.                                        Delaware
SPILAND, Inc.                                       Alabama
SPILOT, Inc.                                        Alabama
SPIMALL, Inc.                                       Alabama
SPIMALLA, Inc.                                      Delaware
SPINAP, Inc.                                        Delaware
SPINELLON, Inc.                                     Delaware
SPINO, Inc.                                         Delaware
SPIPAL, Inc.                                        Delaware
SPIPOWER, Inc.                                      Alabama
SPITON, Inc.                                        Alabama
SPITOWN Corporation                                 Delaware
SPIWACHEE, Inc.                                     Delaware
SPIWARD, Inc.                                       Delaware


                                      38
EXHIBIT
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the
Board of Directors


China
Forestry, Inc.





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (File No. 08913574) of China Forestry, Inc. of our report dated May 15,
2008, related to the financial statements of China Forestry, Inc. as of December
31, 2007 and for each of the two years then ended.





We also
consent to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" appearing in
the Prospectus contained in the above Registration Statement on Form
S-8.








/s/
Malone & Bailey, PC


www.malone-bailey.com


Houston,
Texas


March 30,
2009