alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TESTAMENTARY GUARDIANS OF MINORS.

Court of Appeals for Holmes County.

#### Henicle, Administratrix, v. Flack, Guardian.

Decided, October 29, 1914.

*Guardianship*— Designation *of Person in Will*— Section 10930, *General Code*— Appointment *by Probate Court Necessary, When*— Sections 10492 *and*10931, *General Code*— Estates—Minors.

A testamentary guardian of a minor, named by will, pursuant to tbe provisions of Section 10930, General Code, is without authority to act as such guardian until he has been appointed guardian by the probate court having jurisdiction to make such appointment.

*Newton Stilwell,*for plaintiff in error.

*Charles R. Cary,*contra.

Powell, J.; Shields, J., and Grant, J. (sitting in place of Voorliees, J.), concur.

Suit was brought on an account by plaintiff, Ellen Lemon Iienicle, administratrix, against Della Flack, as testamentary guardian of Peter Painter, a minor, without any averment in the petition that such defendant had been appointed as such guardian by the probate court of this or' any other county of the state.

To this petition a general demurrer was filed and sustained and, plaintiff not desiring to amend, the petition was dismissed. A petition in error was then filed in this court to reverse the judgment of the court below.

The question presented for consideration is the *status*of a testamentary guardian of a minor, without any appointment as such guardian having been made by the probate court.

A testator may name a guardian by will for his minor children. Section 10930, General Code.

"When so named "he shall be entitled to preference in appointment over all others, without reference to his place of residence, or the choice of such minor. His appointment, duties, powers, *448and liabilities ■ in all other respects shall be governed by the law regulating guardians not appointed by will, except as otherwise specially provided. ’ ’ Section 10931, General Code.

This would indicate that a guardian named by will but not appointed by the probate court is without legal standing other than his right to preference in the appointment of such guardian. There are two main reasons why this should be so:

1. That no unsuitable person should be appointed guardian over infants of tender years, to their detriment; and

2. Otherwise the probate court would be without authority "to appoint and remove guardians, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts,” in eases where a guardian has been designated by will. This jurisdiction is exclusive. Section 10492, General Code.

This provision as to guardians is analogous to the appointment of executors named as such in the wills of testators. Section 10605, General Code.

An appointment must be made by the probate court or the executor so named is without authority to act, but the appointment of the executor named in the will is discretionary with the court. The authority of such executor to act is not derived from the will, but from the appointment of the court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action.

The court of common pleas did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the petition, and its judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
was deprived of due process because he did not receive timely notice of the

charges, he was not allowed to present witnesses, there was not some evidence to support the charges, the hearing officer was biased, and the sanctions amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. 2

Appellant failed to demonstrate a violation of due process because he: (1) received advance written notice of the charges; (2) received a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for disciplinary action; and (3) was provided a qualified right to call witnesses and present evidence. 3 Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-69 (1974). Appellant failed to demonstrate that the hearing officer was not impartial. Some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary hearing officer, Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985), and the sanctions

2 To the extent that appellant challenged his placement in disciplinary segregation, appellant's challenge was not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Bowen v. Warden, 100 Nev. 489, 490, 686 P.2d 250, 250 (1984); see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995) (holding that liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause will generally be limited to freedom from restraint which imposes an atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life).

3 1n regards to the latter, appellant did not request specific witnesses at the preliminary inquiry, and the hearing officer stipulated to the substance of the testimony that would have been presented.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A cigDoimposed did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly,

we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 4


# Adam J. Pickering 

# cO i r , J. Parraguirre

Saitta J.

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge Brent Morris Attorney General/Carson City Carson City District Attorney Carson City Clerk

4 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3

(0)1947A ew
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTON ACEVEDO,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-56681

D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00465-DOC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 22, 2014** 

Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Anton Acevedo appeals from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas

FILED

JUL 29 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
petition, see Collins v. Runnels, 603 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2010), and we

reverse and remand.

Acevedo contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by

failing to file a notice of appeal after Acevedo’s 2007 resentencing. The district

court rejected this claim, reasoning that Acevedo could not establish prejudice

under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984), because he did not show that

an appeal would have been successful. But a defendant does not need to show that

the appeal would have been meritorious to demonstrate prejudice, only that there is

a reasonable probability that he would have appealed but for counsel’s failure to

consult with him about an appeal. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 484

(2000); United States v. Sandoval-Lopez, 409 F.3d 1193, 1196 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, we remand for the district court to consider whether there was any

reasonable basis for the state court to reject Acevedo’s claim, applying the proper

standard for prejudice outlined in Flores-Ortega. See Harrington v. Richter, 131

S. Ct. 770, 784 (2011).

In light of our disposition, we decline to address Acevedo’s uncertified

claim at this time.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2 10-56681
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 27, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40744

Summary Calendar

DOUGLAS ALAN BURDEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MITCH G. WOODS, Sheriff; U.P. CASSIDY, Captain; M. HEBERT,

Deputy; U.P. MORGAN, Sergeant; U.P. VEGA, Deputy,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CV-339

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Douglas Alan Burden, Texas prisoner # 1160832, appeals the

dismissal without prejudice as repetitious of his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 suit. Given that the access-to-the-courts claim Burden

raised therein is currently pending in Burden v. Jefferson

County, No. 1:03-CV-233, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing the suit without prejudice. See FED.

R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2); Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc., 279 F.3d
No. 05-40744

-2-

314, 319-20 (5th Cir. 2002). The dismissal is therefore affirmed.

The district court, however, did not address the issue 

Burden raised regarding whether his inmate trust fund should be

credited in the amount of the filing fee withdrawn for the

instant case, which fee was apparently erroneously docketed as a

new cause of action distinct from cause number 1:03-CV-233. The

case is therefore remanded to the district court to address

Burden’s entitlement, if any, to reimbursement for the filing fee

in cause number 1:03-CV-339.

DISMISSAL AFFIRMED; REMANDED.
PUBLIC LAW 115–40—JUNE 14, 2017 131 STAT. 861 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 657: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115–67 (Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017): 

May 1, considered and passed House. 

May 25, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–40 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend certain protections against prohibited 

personnel practices, 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 ‘‘Follow the Rules Act’’. 

SEC. 2. PROHIBITED PERSONNEL ACTION BASED ON ORDERING INDIVIDUAL TO VIOLATE RULE OR REGULATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (D) of section 2302(b)(9) of 

title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, rule, or 

regulation’’ after ‘‘law’’. 

(b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Such subparagraph is further 

amended by striking ‘‘for’’. 

Approved June 14, 2017. 

Follow the Rules 

Act. 

5 USC 101 note. 

June 14, 2017 

[H.R. 657]
MANDAMUS NO. WR-81,972-05 TG:THE CLERK OF THE COURT: ABEL ACOSTg:
In my original writ ofmandamus WR-81,972-05 I sentin some dacuments attached to the writ as evidence. These documents are my only copies af the evidence I nRedtb further my appeal process and was wondering if I couldrequests that copj_ps hP made and retuned to me? I have a writ aff-Jabeas corous on the docket in the 291st Judicial District Court tf-Jat was remanded by the Court of Criminal Appeals inMa:cch of 2015. WR-81.972-04, writ no. W03-2565 7-U(A). I nRed the documents I sent in with the abavementioned Mandamus in order to orepare my petition for W03-25713-U(A), and W03-25714-U(A). which were denied by the Court af Criminal Aopeals in 2014, WR-81,972-02 8nd l!!R-81,972-03
.... So, in order for my appeal process tobe effective I truely need those documents to attach to my sucessive writ inmy defense. Thsnk You In Advance For Your Time.

William G. McConnell Unti 3001 S< EmilV Drive Beeville, Texas 78102

PAGE 1 OF 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

SUPREME COURT CAUSE NO. DA 23-0026

)

STATE OF MONTANA )

Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ORDER EXTENDING TIME

 vs. ) FOR OPENING BRIEF 

)

)

THOMAS WOJTOWICZ ) 

 Defendant/Appellant. )

In response to Defendant/Appellant’s unopposed request for a fourth

extension and good cause therefrom;

IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendant/Appellant shall have until August 21, 

2023, to file the Opening Brief. 

ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND DATED BELOW,

_______________________________________

Supreme Court Justice

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 19 2023

07/19/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0026
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 145 (Thursday, July 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 38043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18221]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AA-61292; AK-965-1410-KC-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

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

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
an appealable decision approving the surface estate of certain lands 
for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act will be issued to Eklutna, Inc. The lands are in the 
vicinity of Eklutna, Alaska, and are located in:

Seward Meridian, Alaska

T. 16 N., R. 1 E.,
    Secs. 27 and 28.

    Containing 500 acres.

    The subsurface estate in these lands will be conveyed to Cook Inlet 
Region, Inc., when the surface estate is conveyed to Eklutna, Inc. 
Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the 
Anchorage Daily News.

DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
    1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely 
affected by the decision shall have until August 31, 2009 to file an 
appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone 
at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c0d07420e0001420f03021a09150d020f092c0d07420e0001420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97f6fcb9f5fbfab9f4f8f9e1f2eef6f9f4f2d7f6fcb9f5fbfab9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons 
who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.

Christy Favorite,
Land Law Examiner, Land Transfer Adjudication II Branch.
[FR Doc. E9-18221 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Katherine Rogers *v.*Lawrence L. Mack

*Morton E. Marvin,*for the appellee (defendant).

*Samuel Gruber,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

Argued April 7

decided April 7, 1964

The motion by the defendant to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County at Stamford is denied.
#### § 1.1031(c)-1 Nonrecognition of loss.

Section 1031(c) provides that a loss shall not be recognized from an exchange of property described in section 1031(a), 1035(a), 1036(a), or 1037(a) where there is received in the exchange other property or money in addition to property permitted to be received without recognition of gain or loss. See example (4) of paragraph (a)(3) of § 1.1037-1 for an illustration of the application of this section in the case of an exchange of U.S. obligations described in section 1037(a).

[T.D. 6935, 32 FR 15822, Nov. 17, 1967]
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 235 ) ll-K - (I ) -4 8 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:56

AM Sheet 235 of 325P. 2 

# a 

# _$ |
H-K-(I)-4 8 FGD COS T ALGORITHMS . EEA , Inc . Februar y5 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATIO NCA

NB E FOUN D I NDOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE M H_K-(i)-4 8
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, David Cohn, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Milestone Scientific Inc. (“theRegistrant”).2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) AND 15D-15(F)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluations; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: May 16, 2007 /s/ David Cohn   David Cohn   Chief Financial Officer  
20
#### § 1.144-0 Table of contents.

This section lists the captioned paragraphs contained in §§ 1.144-1 and 1.144-2.

## § 1.144-1 Qualified small issue bonds, qualified student loan bonds, and qualified redevelopment bonds.

(a) Overview.

(b) Scope.

(c) Effective dates.

## § 1.144-2 Remedial actions.

[T.D. 8712, 62 FR 2303, Jan. 16, 1997]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Jordan American Holdings, Inc. 2nd quarter 10-QSB
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         175,825
<SECURITIES>                                   535,246
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,530
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,960
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               998,512
<PP&E>                                         201,855
<DEPRECIATION>                                 116,313
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,106,430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          446,083
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     30,000
<COMMON>                                        10,409
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,619,938
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,106,430
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               622,831
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,180
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (211,074)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (211,074)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (211,074)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        




</TABLE>
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket** Docket Number: FAA - 2013 - 0090 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM149AD 7 47 - 25 - 2425 --- 8/25/78

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008