alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Superior Court of Cincinnati.)

Special Term, September, 1900.

#### HICKS, Trustee, v. JOHN H. GRUSSEL et al.

(]_). Possession by the sheriff’s keeper is possession by the sheriff.

(2). Arrangement between the sheriff and parties to the suit as to sale of property levied upon, where no bad faith is shown.

An action to determine the rights of John pi. Grussel and W. A. Hicks, tfustpe' to a fund now in the hands of the sheriff by virtue of an attachment, issued and levied and a sale made thereunder at the instance uf Grussel.

W. A. Hicks and A. J. Cunningham, for the Plaintiff.

F. E. Niederhelman, contra.'

Judge Dempsey

holds:

•‘1. That tlie property was in the possession of the sheriff there can be no doubt, since it was in t.he possession of his keeppr, and was ever under the control of the defendant, Poll. A keeper's possession is sufficient under the first head-note to Root v. Railroad Company, 45 O. S., 222.

*“2.*The evidence does not show the least bad faith on the part of the sheriff or parties t** the attachment. In fact, the arrangement as at first entered into was, as said in Baldwin v. Jackson (12 Mass., 132), an innocent and. laudable one, and there is not a particle of evidence in tlie case to show that the plaintiff was misled or deceived thereby or hindered from prosecuting or securing bis claim: and there is a modicum of evidence which shows that plaintiff, through an agent of his at least, was cognizant of tlie arrangement and did not seriously object to it I think the equities of the case on tlie evidence are with tlie defendants, and judgment will be decreed accordingly.”
www.gpo.gov

### §421. Payment of residents for services

#### (a) Authority

The Chairman of the Armed Forces Retirement Board is authorized to accept for the Armed Forces Retirement Home the part-time or intermittent services of a resident of the Retirement Home, to pay the resident for such services, and to fix the rate of such pay.

#### (b) Employment status

A resident receiving pay for services authorized under subsection (a) of this section shall not, by reason of performing such services and receiving pay for such services, be considered as—

(1) receiving the pay of a position or being employed in a position for the purposes of section 5532 of title 5; or

(2) being an employee of the United States for any purpose other than—

(A) subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5 (relating to compensation for work-related injuries); and

(B) chapter 171 of title 28 (relating to claims for damages or loss).

#### (c) “Position” defined

In subsection (b)(1) of this section, the term “position” has the meaning given that term in section 5531 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XV, §1521, as added Pub. L. 102–484, div. A, title III, §385(a), Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2394; amended Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title X, §1052(b), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2650.)

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 104–201 amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: “being an employee of the United States for any other purpose.”

#### Forgiveness of Indebtedness

Section 385(b) of Pub. L. 102–484 provided that: “The Chairman of the Armed Forces Retirement Board is authorized to cancel the indebtedness of any resident of the Armed Forces Retirement Home for repayment to the United States of amounts paid the resident for services provided to the Retirement Home before the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 23, 1992] if the Chairman determines that it would be in the interest of the United States to do so and against equity and good conscience to require the repayment.”
EXHIBIT 35.1





ANNUAL SERVICER’S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE





I, Kim Taylor, certify that:





|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(a) | A review of The Huntington National Bank’s activities and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement, dated as of November 30, 2016 (the “Servicing Agreement”), by and among, Huntington Auto Trust 2016-1 (the “Issuing Entity”), The Huntington National Bank, as Servicer, (in such capacity, the “Servicer”), and Wells Fargo Bank, as indenture trustee (the “Indenture Trustee”), during the year ended December 2017 has been made under my supervision..




|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.
















By:     /s/ Kim Taylor


Name:     Kim Taylor


Title:       Senior Vice President, The Huntington National Bank





Date: March 15, 2018
§ 132.3 Designated payment systems. The following payment systems could be used by participants in connection with, or to facilitate, a restricted transaction: ( a ) Automated clearing house systems;
( b ) Card systems;
( c ) Check collection systems;
( d ) Money transmitting businesses solely to the extent they ( 1 ) Engage in the transmission of funds, which does not include check cashing, currency exchange, or the issuance or redemption of money orders, travelers' checks, and other similar instruments; and
( 2 ) Permit customers to initiate transmission of funds transactions remotely from a location other than a physical office of the money transmitting business; and
( e ) Wire transfer systems.
(.Hamilton County Common Pleas,

1901.)

#### W. A. HICKS, trustee, v. HENRY A. LANGHORST.

Under the bankruptcy act, a payment by an insolvent debtor to a creditor of a debt with the intent' to prefer' such creditor, within four months before adjudication in bankruptcy, in an action to declare such transaction void, plaintiff must prove as a substantive fact, that hte defendant had reasonable”cause to believe that the firm was insolvent.

W. A. Hicks, for plaintiff.

William Worthington, contra.

Spiegel, J

.Plaintiff, as trustee in bankruptcy of Knost & Wilhelmy, files a petition against Henry A. Langhorst, alleging that within four months prior to the adjudication of bankruptcy against said firm, the latter paid defendant $7,367.07 upon a note made to him by them and payable on. demand, with intent to prefer said' defendant to the exclusion of their other creditors, when said firm was already insolvent; and that said defendant, at the time of receiving said payment, bad reasonable cause to believe that said firm intended to prefer him. Counsel for defendant files a motion to require plaintiff to- make his petition definite and certain, by stating whether or no the defendant,- at the time of receiving payment, had reasonable cause to believe whether said firm were insolvent in the sense that the aggregate of their property, then in their possession, was not then at a fair valuation sufficient in amount to pay their debts.

Tjhe motion must be granted. Under the present act, it is not sufficient, in order to declare the transaction alleged in the petition void, that the defendant had reasonable notice to believe that said firm by said payment intended to prefer him, but as a substantive fact, plaintiff will have to prove that the defendant had'reasonable cause to believe that the firm was insolvent, namely, in the language of the act, that he knew, or had reasonable causé to believe, that the assets of the firm, at a fair valuation, at the time of payment of the note, were^Sftsufficient to pay their debts,. Facts which constitute the cause of, action, musí, therefore, not only be proved, but also pleaded.

Motion granted.
#### Hugo ESCOBAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden; G. Morgan, Assistant Warden; G.H. Pugh, Chief Case Worker, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-6681.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2002.

Decided June 19, 2002.

*675Hugo Escobar, Pro Se.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Hugo Escobar appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Escobar v. Garraghty,*No. CA-02-132-2 (E.D.Va. Apr. 10, 2002). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7600

JEROME FRIERSON-BEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, FCI-Estill; HEALTH SERVICE SUPERVISOR

OF FCI-ESTILL; PA ALL UNKNOWN AT FCI-ESTILL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-2721-3-10BC)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Frierson-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1 The magistrate judge properly construed the complaint as one

filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

2 Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

October 7, 1998, the district court’s record discloses that it was

entered on the docket sheet on October 8, 1998, which is the date

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); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 58, 79(a).

2

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Frierson-Bey appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his civil rights complaint.1 We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Frierson-Bey v.

Warden, No. CA-97-2721-3-10BC (D.S.C. Oct. 8, 1998).2 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.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 205.23 What requirements apply to estimates? The following requirements apply when we and a State negotiate a mutually agreed upon funds transfer procedure based on an estimate of the State's immediate cash needs: ( a ) The State must ensure that the estimate reasonably represents the flow of Federal funds under the Federal assistance program or program component to which the estimate applies. The estimate must take into account seasonal or other periodic variations in activity throughout the period for which the Federal funds are available.
( b ) As set forth in §§ 205.9 and 205.10, a Treasury-State agreement must include the method a State uses to develop, maintain, and document the estimate.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 151 (Friday, August 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 39720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19042]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, August 
6, 2009 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and(10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Chairman Schapiro, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session, and determined that 
no earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
August 6, 2009 will be:
    institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    institution and settlement of an administrative proceeding; and
    other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: August 5, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19042 Filed 8-5-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Searched for **http://www.safercar.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.safercar.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1138

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the harbor

maintenance tax if the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is overfunded.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 6, 1995

Mr. MCDERMOTT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce

the harbor maintenance tax if the Harbor Maintenance

Trust Fund is overfunded.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN HARBOR MAINTENANCE TAX IF

4 TRUST FUND IS OVERFUNDED.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 4461 of

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to harbor

7 maintenance tax) is amended to read as follows:

8 ‘‘(b) AMOUNT OF TAX.—

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The amount of the tax im10 posed by subsection (a) on any port use shall be an
2

•HR 1138 IH

1 amount equal to the applicable percentage of the

2 value of the commercial cargo involved.

3 ‘‘(2) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For purposes

4 of paragraph (1)—

5 ‘‘(A) CALENDAR YEARS BEFORE 1999.—In

6 the case of calendar years 1996, 1997, and

7 1998, the applicable percentage is the percent8 age determined under the following table:

‘‘In the case of The applicable

calendar year: percentage is:

1996 ............................................................... 0.105

1997 ............................................................... 0.085

1998 ............................................................... 0.065.

9 ‘‘(B) CALENDAR YEARS AFTER 1998.—

10 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The applicable

11 percentage for any calendar year after

12 1998 shall be 0.01 percentage point less

13 than such percentage for the preceding cal14 endar year if, as of the close of fiscal year

15 ending in such preceding calendar year,

16 the balance in the Harbor Maintenance

17 Trust Fund exceeds $100,000,000.

18 ‘‘(ii) POTENTIAL RESTORATION OF

19 RATE OF TAX.—If—

20 ‘‘(I) as of the close of any fiscal

21 year, the balance in the Harbor Main22 tenance Trust Fund does not exceed

23 $100,000,000, and
3

•HR 1138 IH

1 ‘‘(II) the applicable percentage

2 for the calendar year in which such

3 fiscal year ends is less than 0.125 per4 cent,

5 then the applicable percentage for the fol6 lowing calendar year shall be 0.01 percent7 age point greater than such percentage for

8 the calendar year referred to in subclause

9 (II).’’

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

11 this section shall apply to calendar years after 1995.

Æ
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 245.7 Check status inquiry.

The Commissioner will provide the status and a copy of the check if available, upon request, to the agency which authorized the issuance of the check.
§ 16.47 Limitations. ( a ) The notice of hearing with respect to a claim or statement must be served in the manner specified in § 16.8 within 6 years after the date on which such claim or statement is made.
( b ) If the defendant fails to file a timely answer, service of a notice under § 16.10(b) shall be deemed a notice of hearing for purposes of this section.
( c ) The time limits of this statute of limitations may be extended by agreement of the parties.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 19 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 19

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                         pertaining to prayer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. de la Garza introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                         pertaining to prayer.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is hereby proposed as 
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the 
Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit 
individual or group prayer in public schools or other public 
institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by 
any State to participate in prayer.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INTERNAL
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-2000
<CASH>                                         374,154
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,868,749
<ALLOWANCES>                                   910,000
<INVENTORY>                                  7,286,245
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,978,436
<PP&E>                                       3,446,189
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,692,057
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,624,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,210,260
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        7,500,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       158,708
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,371,659
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,624,689
<SALES>                                      1,598,062
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,598,062
<CGS>                                        1,355,346
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,355,346
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              88,211
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,626,038)
<INCOME-TAX>                                14,555,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,928,962
<DISCONTINUED>                                 945,970
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,874,932
<EPS-BASIC>                                       $.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.65


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.4

 

AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE

TO

EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

(William J. Barrett)

 

On January 1, 2005, Supreme Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (hereafter called “Company”) entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Contract with William J. Barrett (hereafter called “Executive”).

 

Paragraph 19 of such Amended and Restated Employment Contract provides that such Contract can be amended at any time by an instrument in writing setting forth the particulars of such amendment and duly executed by Company and Executive.

 

In accordance with such paragraph 19, Company and Executive hereby amend the Amended and Restated Employment Contract so as to amend paragraph 5.d. by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

 

“d.           Dental and Vision Benefits.  Company shall pay or reimburse Executive for all family dental expenses and all family vision (eye care) expenses up to a maximum of $5,000 per year.  However, in the event the full $5,000 is not used up in a given calendar year, the unused portion can be carried forward to a future calendar year (or years). Also, if the payment or reimbursement in one calendar year exceeds $5,000, the excess over $5,000 may be reimbursed from any unused amounts available in the succeeding calendar year (or years).”

 

In all other respects, Company and Executive hereby ratify and affirm all of the other provisions contained in the Amended and Restated Employment Contract.

 

This document may be signed in multiple counterparts, each of which for all purposes shall be deemed an original.

 

[Signature Page to Follow]

 











 

Dated to be effective June 29, 2012.

 

 

	
COMPANY:  
    	
EXECUTIVE:  
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Supreme   Industries, Inc. 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:   
    	
/s/   Matthew W. Long 
    	
 
    	
/s/   William J. Barrett 
    
	
 
    	
Matthew   W. Long 
    	
William   J. Barrett
    
	
 
    	
Interim   C.E.O. and C.F.O. 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
P.   O. Box 237 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
2581   E. Kercher Road 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Goshen, IN   46527-0237
    	
 
    
				


 

2