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

An equity petition does not lie to enjoin proceedings under a levy, where the defendant in execution has a complete and adequate remedy by illegality, or where the defendant’s homestead rights in the property levied on may be as completely asserted in a statutory claim.

May 16, 1913.

Injunction. Before Judge Maddox. Floyd superior court. January 14, 1913.

*M. B. Eubanks,*for plaintiff in error. *John W. Bale,*contra.

Evans, P. J.

A fi. fa. issued on a judgment obtained by John M. Smith against Mary Miller and Eosa Miller was levied on a lot of land as the property of Mary Miller (now Mary Murphey), and she sought to enjoin its further progress. The grounds assigned for equitable interference were: that she alone was served with process in the suit (a return of non est inventus having been made as to the other defendant); that her codefendant has died; that by virtue of the deed under which she holds the land the interest of her codefendant upon her death vested in petitioner'; that she has been discharged in bankruptcy from the debt sought to be enforced; and that the land levied on was duly set apart to her, over the creditor’s objection, as an exemption by the bankrupt court.

If the judgment debt of the moving creditor has been discharged in bankruptcy, this defense can be met by affidavit of illegality. *Monroe*v. *Security Insurance Co.,*127 *Ga.*550 (56 S. E. 764). The moving creditor contends that the debtor’s discharge in bankruptcy did not affect his judgment, which was on a foreclosure of a materialman’s lien on the land; that though his judgment was obtained within four months of the adjudication of bankruptcy, nevertheless the materials were furnished and his claim of lien recorded more than four months before the adjudication. To this contention the petitioner replies, that a debt for materials furnished for the improvement of property subsequently set apart as a home*81stead when reduced to judgment will not subject the homestead estate *(Wilder v. Frederick,*67 *Ga.*669); and that an exemption set apart by the bankrupt court is no more subject to be levied oh than if the exemption had been allowed as a homestead by the ordinary of the county *(Ross*v. *Worsham,*65 *Ga.*624; *Evans*v. *Rounsaville,*115 *Ga.*684, 42 S. E. 100); and moreover that it had been adjudicated by the United States court that the exempted property was not subject to the creditor’s judgment. Even if the exemption of the land from levy and sale could, not be set up by illegality, it certainly could be asserted by a statutory claim. *Brantley*v. *Stephens,*77 *Ga.*467.

The rule is that equity will not entertain a petition to enjoin the levy of a fi. fa., if the' defendant has a full and adequate legal remedy. *Booth*v. *Mohr,*122 *Ga.*333 (50 S. E. 173); *Hitchcock*v. *Culver,*107 *Ga.*184 (33 S. E. 35). It was, therefore, erroneous' to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the creditor from further proceeding with the levy of his execution.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 99.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report of Grange National Bank Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Philip
O. Farr, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         B.       The Report 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 Company.



                                   /s/ Philip O. Farr
                                   -------------------------------
                                   Philip O. Farr
                                   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date:  May 14, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6808

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TONY CURTIS BENTON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-236-A, CA-99-523-AM) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 7, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Curtis Benton, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on April 23, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on April 27, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Tony Curtis Benton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Benton , Nos. CR-94-236-A; CA-99-523-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
2828.307-1 Group insurance plans.       Under cost-reimbursement contracts, the contractor, before buying insurance under a group insurance plan, shall submit the plan to the contracting officer for review and approval. During review, the contracting officer may utilize all sources of information available such as audit, industry practices, etc., to determine if acceptance of the group insurance plan is in the Government's best interest.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2828.3 - Insurance
2444.204 Contract clauses.       (a) Insert HUDAR clause 2452.244-70 Consent to Subcontract, in contracts and task orders with an estimated value exceeding $10,000,000.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2444.2 - Contract Clauses
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">People of the State of New York, 	Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Anthony Varner, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Richard A. Tsai, J.), rendered June 13, 2018, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Richard A. Tsai, J.), rendered June 13, 2018, affirmed.</p><p>The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. It charged all the elements of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (<i>see </i>Penal Law ยง 220.03), the sole offense to which defendant pleaded guilty. The instrument recited that at a specified time and place, police "recovered one large twist and fourteen bags of crack cocaine from defendant's socks," which the officer knew was "crack cocaine based on [his] professional training as a police officer in the identification of drugs, [his] prior experience as a police officer making drug arrests, and [his] observation of the packaging, which is characteristic of crack cocaine" (<i>see People v Smalls</i>, 26 NY3d 1064 [2015]; <i>People v Kalin</i>, 12 NY3d 225, 231-232 [2009]; <a href="../2010/2010_07996.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Pearson</i>, 78 AD3d 445</a> [2010], <i>lv denied</i> 16 NY3d 799 [2011]). Indeed, defendant does not challenge the facial sufficiency of this charge.</p><p>Defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the third-degree drug possession charge contained in the felony complaint, which the court dismissed as part of defendant's plea, is unavailing, since defendant is not aggrieved by alleged defects in felony charges that were dismissed on the People's motion as part of the plea (<i>see </i>CPL 470.15[1]; <a href="../2017/2017_00022.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Ruiz</i>, 146 AD3d 417</a> [2017], <i>lv denied</i> 28 NY3d 1188 [2017]). </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: January 17, 2020<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
159 So.2d 285

#### Mrs. Marion W. GILLAN et al. v. Shirley T. JONES et al.

No. 47017.

Jan. 20, 1964.

In re: James L. Dennis, Provisional Administrator, etc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Madison. 157 So.2d 598.

Writ denied. No error of law under facts found by Court of Appeal.

McCALEB, J., is of the opinion that a writ should be granted but limited to the extent as indicated in No. 47,015 of the docket, 245 La. 569, 159 So.2d 284.
319.270-1 Mentor Protégé Program Solicitation provision and contract clause.       (a) The contacting officer shall insert the provision at 352.219-70, Mentor-Protégé Program, in solicitations that include the clause at FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The provision requires offerors to provide the contracting officer a copy of their HHS Office of OSDBU-approved mentor-protégé agreement in response to a solicitation.          (b) The contacting officer shall insert the clause at 352.219-71, Mentor-Protégé Program Reporting Requirements, in contracts that include the clause at FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and which are awarded to a contractor with an HHS OSDBU-approved mentor-protégé agreement.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 319.2 - Policies
607.102 Policy.

It is the Department's policy that every acquisition be conducted and the contract file documented in

conformance with the requirements for acquisition planning pursuant to FAR part 7.

Parent topic: PART 607—ACQUISITION PLANNING
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                          17,642
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,643
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,212
<INVENTORY>                                     41,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               144,287
<PP&E>                                          78,706
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,616
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 272,916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,469
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,799
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   272,916
<SALES>                                        143,850
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               143,850
<CGS>                                           71,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,598
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,011
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,461
<INCOME-TAX>                                       730
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                731
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       11,250
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,519)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)


</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 51 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 51 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 51 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 51 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 51 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 51 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 6 of 6
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 360 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 360 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 2 of 12
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 360 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 3 of 12
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 360 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 4 of 12
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 360 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 5 of 12
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 360 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 6 of 12
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 360 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 7 of 12
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 360 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 8 of 12
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 360 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 9 of 12
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 360 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 10 of 12
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 360 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 11 of 12
Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 360 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 12 of 12
#### In the Matter of Herman Cargill, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 831]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

After a correction officer felt an unknown object in petitioner’s groin area during a pat frisk, petitioner was strip frisked and found to be in possession of a plastic shank with a cloth handle *1256and string lanyard, which appeared to be crafted from a cooking utensil. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with smuggling and possession of a weapon. He was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing. After the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.*

Initially, we find no merit to petitioner’s contention that he was improperly denied the “use of force” report inasmuch as the record discloses that no such report was prepared and there is no requirement to produce documents that do not exist *(see Matter of Spirles v Goord,*308 AD2d 610, 611 [2003]). Likewise, there was no error in the failure to provide petitioner with certain photographs given that, although he asked the hearing officer to review them, he never made a formal request that he be provided with copies *(see Matter of Thomassini v Goord,*13 AD3d 954 [2004], *appeal dismissed*5 NY3d 848 [2005]). Petitioner’s remaining claims are not preserved for our review due to his failure to raise them at the hearing *(see e.g. Matter of Belle v Goord,*269 AD2d 721, 722 [2000]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

*

 Notwithstanding the fact that the petition did not raise a question of substantial evidence and the proceeding was improperly transferred to this Court, we retain jurisdiction in the interest of judicial economy (see *Matter of Otero v Goord,*17 AD3d 805, 806 n [2005]).
#### § 996.5 Handler.

*Handler* means any person who handles peanuts, in a capacity other than that of a custom cleaner or dryer, an assembler, a warehouseman or other intermediary between the producer and the person handling peanuts.
1431.101 Objectives.

Individual deviations concerning cost principles and procedures shall require the approval of the

cognizant Assistant Secretary, with further redelegation authorized. Redelegation is limited to the

BPC.

Parent topic: Subpart 1431.1 - Applicability
PUBLIC LAW 109–314—OCT. 6, 2006 120 STAT. 1739

Public Law 109–314

109th Congress

An Act

To amend Public Law 104–329 to modify authorities for the use of the National

Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Maintenance Fund, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Maintenance Fund Act of 2005’’.

SEC. 2. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO NATIONAL LAW

ENFORCEMENT MEMORIAL MAINTENANCE FUND.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 201 of Public Law 104–329 is

amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(d) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Effective on and after the date of the

enactment of the National Law Enforcement Memorial Maintenance Fund Act of 2005, the following applies, notwithstanding

other provisions of this Act:

‘‘(A) The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the

National Park Service, shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, Inc., a nonprofit corporation incorporated under

the laws of the District of Columbia, to carry out the

purposes of the Fund as described in subsection (b).

‘‘(B) In accordance with the terms of such agreement,

the Secretary shall transfer all amounts in the Fund to

the Corporation.

‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this subsection—

‘‘(A) the term ‘Corporation’ means the National Law

Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, Inc.; and

‘‘(B) the term ‘Secretary’ means the Secretary of the

Interior.’’.

(b) PURPOSES OF FUND.—Section 201(b) of Public Law 104–

329 is amended—

(1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon;

(2) by striking paragraphs (4), (6), and (7), and redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4); and

Effective date.

National Law

Enforcement

Officers

Memorial

Maintenance

Fund Act of 2005.

16 USC 431 note.

Oct. 6, 2006

[H.R. 2107]

120 STAT. 1740 PUBLIC LAW 109–314—OCT. 6, 2006

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2107:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 109–247 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 151 (2005): May 16, considered and passed House.

Vol. 152 (2006): Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

(3) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated), by striking the

semicolon and inserting a period.

Approved October 6, 2006.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-26-1999
<CASH>                                         10,917
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,852
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13,192
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     660
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,852
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,500)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (773)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (375)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cr-00203-MHT-CSC Document 26 Filed 01/30/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### § 955.80 Compliance.

No handler shall handle Vidalia onions except in conformity with the provisions of this part.
Subpart 2403.1 - Safeguards

Parent topic: PART 2403 - IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST

2403.101 Standards of conduct.

Detailed rules which apply to the conduct of HUD employees are set forth in 5 CFR part 2635 and 5

CFR part 7501.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.1404 Prehearing conference. ( a ) No later than forty (40) days after the order granting requests for hearing/petitions to intervene, the presiding officer shall conduct a prehearing conference. At the discretion of the presiding officer, the prehearing conference may be held in person or by telephone or through the use of video conference technology.
( b ) At the prehearing conference, each party shall provide the presiding officer and the parties participating in the conference with a statement identifying each witness the party plans to present at the hearing and a written summary of the oral and written testimony of each proposed witness. If the prehearing conference is not held in person, each party shall forward the summaries of the party's witnesses' testimony to the presiding officer and the other parties by such means that will ensure the receipt of the summaries by the commencement of the prehearing conference.
( c ) At the prehearing conference, the parties shall describe the results of their efforts to settle their disputes or narrow the contentions that remain for hearing, provide an agreed statement of facts, if any, identify witnesses that they propose to present at hearing, provide questions or question areas that they would propose to have the presiding officer cover with the witnesses at the hearing, and discuss other pertinent matters. At the conclusion of the conference, the presiding officer will issue an order specifying the issues to be addressed at the hearing and setting forth any agreements reached by the parties. The order must include the scheduled date for any hearing that remains to be held, and address any other matters as appropriate.