alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOHNSON, Adm’r, *vs.*CRUTCHER.

[BILL IN EQUITY TO BEFOBM DEED, 4C.]

1. Deed; *when will he reformed, &o.-*— A father, after the death of his son leaving a widow and minor children, conveyed by deed to his administrator land which the son had occupied several years under a parol gift, in» tending to subject it to the claims of his creditors and his wife’s dower, in the same manner as if the conveyance had been made before his death, *—Held,*that on a proper bill by the widow, equity will reform the deed, allot the dower, and apportion to the family the statutory provision of five hundred dollars worth of the land.

Appeal from the Chancery Court of Madison,

Heard before Hon. ¥t. Skinner.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Bobinson & Walker, for appellant.

Cabaniss *&*Ward, *contra.*

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

William Crutcher made a parol gift to his son James, who was a married man with several children, of a tract of land, placing him in possession. James died after several years occupancy of the premises, without having obtained any better title. Some time after *369Ms death, his father executed a conveyance of the land to his administrator, with the intention of subjecting it to his debts and to the dower-right of his widow in the same manner as if he had conveyed it to him prior to his death. But by mistake and misapprehension of himself and the conveyancer, this purpose was not effected, and the deed was nothing more than a simple conveyance to the son’s administrator without the expression of any use or trust. The widow of James filed this bill alleging the above facts and praying for a reformation of the deed, an allotment of her dower in the land, and a reservation of five hundred dollars worth of it for the family. William Crutcher and the administrator of James were made defendants. The proof was in exact correspondence with the allegations, and the chancellor decreed the relief sought. During the pendency of these proceedings James Crutcher’s estate was declared insolvent.

The jurisdiction of chancery in the allotment of dower is not taken away by the statutory jurisdiction conferred on the probate *court.*— Owen *v. Slatter,*26 Ala. 547.

The reformation of a deed is only cognizable in equity, and that court will always grant relief when the mistake or other ground is clearly shown, and there will be no prejudice to rights acquired by- others through the laches of the of the applicant.— *Whitehead v.*Brown, 18 Ala. 682; *Stone v. Hale,*17 Ala. 557.

This is clearly a case where the power of reformation ought to be exerted, The mistake is proved beyond question, and there is no possibility of injury to the rights of any one.

The decree is affirmed,
EXHIBIT 31.3

                CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. 78M(A) OR 78O(D)
                 (SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)


I, Sam Friedland, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Odd Job Stores, 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 officers 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 we 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 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 officers 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 function):

           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/ Sam Friedland
Date: November 14, 2003              ------------------------------------------
                                     Sam Friedland
                                     President and Co-Chief Executive Officer
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 Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. ("Company") Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2007 ("Report"), the undersigned
certifies 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.


Date: June 4, 2007

By: /s/ Debi Kokinos
--------------------
Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 32
                                   ----------


                            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 Commodore Separation Technologies,
  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as
  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
  "Report"), we, Paul Hannesson and Andrew P. Oddi, Chief Executive Officer and
  Chief Financial Officer, respectively, 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 to our knowledge:

         (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.

  August 14, 2003


  /s/ Paul Hannesson
  ------------------
  Paul Hannesson
  Chief Executive Officer


  /s/ Andrew P. Oddi
  ------------------
  Andrew P. Oddi
  Chief Financial Officer
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 18-3055

___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee , v. Joshua R. Berryhill, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
.

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________ Submitted: June 14, 2019

Filed: August 13, 2019 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Joshua Berryhill pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Atsentencing, the district court 1 determined a base offense level of 20 because Berryhill committed the instant offense after “sustain ing one felony conviction of . . . a crime of violence.” USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). The court concluded that either of Berryhill’s two prior Missouri felony convictions—second-degree robbery, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.030, or armed criminal action, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.015—qualified as a “c rime of violence.” See USSG § 4B1.2(a). After calculating an advisory guideline range of 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment, the court varied downward from the range and sentenced Berryhill to 48 months’ imprisonment. Berryhill appeals, arguing that the court committed procedural error by finding that he had sustained a previous conviction for a crime of violen ce. We have since held, however, that Missouri second-degree robbery is indeed a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines, United States v. Parker , 929 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2019), so Berryhill’s contention is foreclosed by circuit precedent. The district court did not err in calculating the advisory guideline range. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2-
EXHIBIT 99.1 -- Servicer's Annual Statement of Compliance


LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP
4828 Loop Central Drive
Houston, Texas 77081


March 10, 2005


RE: C-BASS Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates,
Series 2004-CB4


To Whom It May Concern:

The undersigned officer of Litton Loan Servicing LP
provides the Annual Statement as to Compliance as
required by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for
the above referenced security and certifies that
(i) a review of the activities of the Servicer during
such preceding fiscal year (or such shorter period
in the case of the first such report) and of
performance under this Agreement has been made under
my supervision, and (ii) to the best of my knowledge,
based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all
its obligations under this Agreement for 2004.

Sincerely,


/s/ Janice McClure
Janice McClure
Senior Vice President

/s/ Ann Kelley
Ann Kelley
Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                  12,071
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           1,642
<ALLOWANCES>                            906
<INVENTORY>                             69
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        14,164
<PP&E>                                  10,706
<DEPRECIATION>                          (4,850)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          20,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   6,246
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                48,555
<OTHER-SE>                              (34,902)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            20,542
<SALES>                                 4,094
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        4,094
<CGS>                                   3,554
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           3,554
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        2,995
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        162
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      (19)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (2,436)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (2,436)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            (2,436)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (0.19)


</TABLE>
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3528 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Diphenyl sulfide. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2005 

Mr. BUYER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Diphenyl 

sulfide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DIPHENYL SULFIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.29.06 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Diphenyl sulfide) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 3528 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### In the Matter of J. Radley Herold, Appellant, v Carl A. Vergari, District Attorney of Westchester County, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in effect to compel the respondent to consent to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal in a pending criminal prosecution, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered July 19, 1977, which dismissed the proceeding. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner is not an aggrieved party within the meaning of CPLR 5511; it is his client, not he, who is the real party in interest. Were we not ordering the dismissal of this appeal, we would affirm the judgment under review on the opinion of Mr. Justice Walsh at Special Term. Martuscello, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
### §1669. Administration and enforcement of collection of customs duties; employment and training of residents

The Secretary of the Treasury shall, upon the request of the Governor of American Samoa, administer and enforce the collection of all customs duties derived from American Samoa, without cost to the government of American Samoa. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Governor of American Samoa, shall make every effort to employ and train the residents of American Samoa to carry out the provisions of this section. The administration and enforcement of this section shall commence October 1, 1980.

(Pub. L. 96–205, title V, §502, Mar. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 90.)
#### § 990.140 Occupied dwelling units.

A PHA is eligible to receive operating subsidy for public housing units for each unit month that those units are under an ACC and occupied by a public housing-eligible family under lease.
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Robert V. Johnson, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of FCStone Group, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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.



|    |  |                                                                        
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /S/    ROBERT V.
JOHNSON                                               
|    |  | Robert V. Johnson Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)



Date:
November 29, 2005
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSpace Shuttle Program (SSP) Dual Docked Operations (DDO)This document describes the concept definition, studies, and analysis results generated by the Space Shuttle Program (SSP), International Space Station (ISS) Program (ISSP), and Mission Operations Directorate for implementing Dual Docked Operations (DDO) during mated Orbiter/ISS missions. This work was performed over a number of years. Due to the ever increasing visiting vehicle traffic to and from the ISS, it became apparent to both the ISSP and the SSP that there would arise occasions where conflicts between a visiting vehicle docking and/or undocking could overlap with a planned Space Shuttle launch and/or during docked operations. This potential conflict provided the genesis for evaluating risk mitigations to gain maximum flexibility for managing potential visiting vehicle traffic to and from the ISS and to maximize launch and landing opportunities for all visiting vehicles.Document ID20160014851Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsSills, Joel W., Jr.*(NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX, United States)*Bruno, Erica E.*(Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc. Houston, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredDecember 22, 2016Publication DateNovember 1, 2016Subject CategorySpace Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2016-219350L-20769NF1676L-26005Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 869021.03.05.01.05Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20160014851.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Argued and submitted November 25, 1997,

reversed and remanded with instructions April 15, 1998

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Charles C. Taylor, Claimant. Charles C. TAYLOR, *Petitioner, v.*Fred W. JACK, Charles McGlinchey, SAIF Corporation, and Department of Consumer and Business Services, *Respondents.*

(WCB No. 91-16775; CA A91856)

957 P2d 194

Dale C. Johnson argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Malagon, Moore, Johnson & Jensen.

Mary H. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Department of Consumer and Business Services.

William J. Blitz argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents Fred W. Jack and Charles McGlinchey.

No appearance for SAIF Corporation.

Before De Muniz, Presiding Judge, and Deits,* Chief Judge, and Haselton, Judge.

*

 Deits, C. J., *vice*Rossman, S. J.

PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss request for review. *Oldham v. Plumlee,*151 Or App 402, 950 P2d 918 (1998).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                              15
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,922
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,282
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,601
<PP&E>                                         188,491
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 298,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,548
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           23,136
<PREFERRED>                                     23,000
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,039
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   298,321
<SALES>                                         71,574
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,574
<CGS>                                           68,037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,779
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (231)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,841)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,635)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,206)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,206)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>