alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
APPEALS — ASSIGNMENT FOR CREDITORS.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

November Term, 1886.]

Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.

#### W. P. Biddle, Trustee v. Gardner E. Phipps et al.

1. Appeal by Assignee oe an Insolvent Estate Having a Personal Claim Against the Estate.

An assignee of an insolvent estate having a *personal*claim against the estate, cannot appeal irom a judgment against him in the probate court without giving bond. Such appeal is not in the intent of the trust.

2. Trustee oe Insolvent Estate Cannot Recover Individual Claims oe His Predecessor.

A trustee of an insolvent estate can not recover individual claims of his deceased predecessor.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

E. S. Cotton and E. P. Bradstreet, for the plaintiff.

Wm. Worthington, for the defendant.'

Cox, J.

The defendant in error held a mortgage on property assigned by Ware. The present trustee succeeded A. A. Clerke, assignee, deceased. Clerke continued the business of the assignor for a time after the assignment was made, and in so doing lost money. In continuing the business be advanced money of his own, and took a mortgage on the property to secure himself. The probate court held that the Phipps mortgage was prior to the claim of Clerke for advances made by him in continuing the business and attorney’s fees. Clerke took an appeal, but died before executing a bond. The common pleas court thereupon decided that as the action was for the benefit of Clerke, individually, and not for the benefit of the trust, before the appeal could be perfected, he should have given a bond, and dismissed the appeal.

*Held,*that under sec. 6408 Rev. Stat., a bond for appeal must be given unless the appeal be in the interest of a trust, and that the common pleas court decided correctly that the action at bar was not for the benefit of the trust, but for the benefit of Clerke individually.

Judgment affirmed.

A second case between the same parties presented the same state of facts, except that in this case Clerke executed a bond before his decease, but failed to file the transcript in the common pleas court. This omission was corrected, as it was supposed, by the filing of the transcript by Mr. Biddle, Mr. Clerke’s successor in the management of the Ware trust.

*Held,*that Biddle has no right of recovery, and hence acted without authority in the filing of the transcript. By sec.’6409 Rev. Stat., it is made the duty of the person appealing to file the appeal in the court of common pleas. Possibly the personal representative of Clerke would have a right to file it, but certainly no such right attaches to his successor in the administration of the trust. Still another reason why Biddle could not recover was that he had never been substituted as the plaintiff in the case.
#### § 404.2 Policy and objective.

It is the policy and objective of this subpart to promote the results of federally funded research and development through the patenting and licensing process. In negotiating licenses, the Government may consider payments under a licensing agreement as a means for encouraging the licensee to develop an invention in order to advance practical application and promote commercialization by the licensee.

[88 FR 17739, Mar. 24, 2023]
§ 93.522 Filing post-hearing briefs. ( a ) After the hearing and under a schedule set by the ALJ , the parties may file post-hearing briefs, and the ALJ may allow the parties to file reply briefs.
( b ) The parties may include proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in their post-hearing briefs.
Exhibit 35.1





Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.








This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 24, 2020 (the “Agreement”) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2020-3 (the “Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith.  The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.





The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer.  I further certify as follows:





1. I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022, and its performance under the Agreement.





2. To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.








AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.





By:/s/ Connie CoffeyDated:March 3, 2023Connie CoffeyExecutive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
#### § 1.490 Legal effect of order.

The records to which §§ 1.460 through 1.499 of this part apply may be disclosed if authorized by an appropriate order of a court of competent jurisdiction granted after application showing good cause therefore. In assessing good cause the court is statutorily required to weigh the public interest and the need for disclosure against the injury to the patient or subject, to the physician-patient relationship, and to the treatment services. Upon the granting of such order, the court, in determining the extent to which any disclosure of all or any part of any record is necessary, is required by statute to impose appropriate safeguards against unauthorized disclosure. An order of a court of competent jurisdiction to produce records subject to §§ 1.460 through 1.499 of this part will not be sufficient unless the order reflects that the court has complied with the requirements of 38 U.S.C. 7332(b)(2)(D). Such an order from a Federal court compels disclosure. However, such an order from a State court only acts to authorize the Secretary to exercise discretion pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 5701(b)(5) and 38 CFR 1.511 to disclose such records. It does not compel disclosure.

[60 FR 63929, Dec. 13, 1995, as amended at 85 FR 64043, Oct. 9, 2020]
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    this Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2005 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2005
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Thor Industries, Inc.
 Date: November 28, 2005
    
    /s/
    
    Wade F. B. ThompsonWade F. B. ThompsonChairman, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer (principal executive officer)
 21
41537.

#### BAGGETT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. BARNES.

*59Argued September 14, 1965

Decided January 31, 1966.

*60
      *Mitchell, Clarke, Pate & Anderson, William M. Pate,*for plaintiff in error.

*William V. George,*contra.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

1. The employer now concedes that it is liable for medical expenses not previously paid up to the amount of $1,500, even if incurred after the expiration of 10 weeks from the date of injury. See *Federal Ins. Co. v. Spooner,*107 Ga. App. 175, 177 (129 SE2d 214). However, employer still insists that the board had no authority to deny credit in the award of February 15, 1965, for medical expenses paid without approval of the board.

*Code*§ 114-501 provides: “In case of a controversy arising between the employer and the employee relative to the continuance of medical, surgical, hospital or other treatment, the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation may order such further treatments as may in the discretion of the Board be necessary, within the limits of time and amount as set forth above.

“The Board may at any time upon request of an employee order a change of physicians or treatment and designate other treatment or another physician as suggested by the injured employee subject to the approval of the Board, and in such a case the expense thereof shall be borne by the employer upon the same terms and conditions as hereinbefore provided in this section for medical and surgical treatment and attendance.”

“A determination of the amount of credits due could be made by the board under an appropriate application for a hearing on the question, pursuant to the provisions of *Code*§ 114-715. This procedure would in no way have the effect of amending, varying or changing the award, but merely permits the application on the award of that credit which the law permits.” *Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Davis,*106 Ga. App. 369, 371 (126*61SE2d 909). Payments of medical expenses without approval of the board were mere gratuities for which no credit could be taken by the employer. *Baggett Transportation Co. v. Barnes,*109 Ga. App. 98, 100 (135 SE2d 343).

The award of the board, including the assessment of attorney’s fees against the employer under *Code*§ 114-712, was authorized.

2. Claimant’s motion to assess additional attorney’s fees is denied. This court has no authority to assess attorney’s fees under *Code*§ 114-712. *Dunn v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co.,*64 Ga. App. 509, 514 (13 SE2d 902).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur.*
HomePolicy Issues…Cyber Issues

Policy Issues

# Cyber Issues

Ensuring the security of cyberspace is fundamental to protecting America’s national security and promoting the prosperity of the American people. Cyberspace is an integral component of all facets of American life, including the country’s economy and defense. Yet private and public entities still struggle to secure their systems, and adversaries have increased the frequency and sophistication of their malicious cyber activities. 

In partnership with other countries, the Department of State is leading the U.S. government’s efforts to promote an open, interoperable, secure, and reliable information and communications infrastructure that supports international trade and commerce, strengthens international security, and fosters free expression and innovation.

The Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy (CDP) leads and coordinates the Department’s work on cyberspace and digital diplomacy to encourage responsible state behavior in cyberspace and advance policies that protect the integrity and security of the infrastructure of the Internet, serve U.S. interests, promote competitiveness, and uphold democratic values. Learn more about the CDP bureau.

## 			Top Stories		

## Building Digital Solidarity: The United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy

                    -  May 8, 2024							Technology and the Transformation of U.S. Foreign Policy						     
                    -  May 6, 2024							Technology and the Transformation of U.S. Foreign Policy						   
                    -  May 6, 2024							Release of United States’ International Cyberspace and Digital Policy Strategy						   
Read All Top Stories

Back to Top

                        - White House
                        - USA.gov
                        - Office of the Inspector General
                        - Archives
                        - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookTwitterInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

                      - Privacy Policy
                      - Accessibility Statement
                      - Copyright Information
                      - FOIA
                      - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
Exhibit 32.1


                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of QMed, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended February 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Michael W. Cox, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company and William T. Schmitt, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his 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.


/s/ Michael W. Cox
------------------------
Michael W. Cox
Chief Executive Officer
April 5, 2006



/s/ William T. Schmitt, Jr.
---------------------------
William T. Schmitt, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
April 5, 2006

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to QMed, Inc. and will be retained by QMed Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
# WASHOE COUNTYHEALTHDISTRICT AIRQUALITYMANAGEMENTDIVISION
July 1,2013 Matthew Lakin Air Quality Analysis Office Chief Air Division, US EPA Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street, AIR-7 San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Mr. Lakin: 

### PublicHealth PTevent. Promote. Protect.

Enclosed is the "Washoe County Health District, Air Quality Management Division 2013 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan". This plan was prepared in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10 and was available for public inspection from June 1toJune 30, 2013 atthe Washoe County Health District, Air Quality Management Division (WCAQMD) website (ourcleanair.com). A hardcopy ofthe plan was also available atthe AQMD office. No public comments were received duringthe public inspection period. Ifyou have any questions or comments regarding this submittal, feel free to contact Mr. Craig Petersen or me at (775) 784-7200. Sincerely, Daniel Inouye Monitoring and Planning Branch Chief Air Quality Management Division Washoe County Health District cc: Elfego Felix, Region IX via email Craig Petersen, WCAQMD



### P.O.BOX 11130 Reno,NY 89520-0027· (775) 784-7200 •FAX (775) 784-7225 www.washoecounty.us/health Printed Oil Recycled Paper
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 41.206 Common interests in the invention.

An administrative patent judge may decline to declare, or if already declared the Board may issue judgment in, an interference between an application and another application or patent that are commonly owned.
§ 17.255 Applications for grants for programs which include construction projects. In addition to the documents and evidence required by § 17.254, any application for a grant for the construction of any facility, structure or system which is part of an exchange of information program shall include the following: ( a ) Each application shall include complete descriptions, maps, and surveys of the construction site, and documentary evidence and explanations showing ownership, and
( b ) Each application shall include complete plans and specifications for the construction project, and where applicable, sufficient explanations of technical applications so that they may be understood by the layman, and
( c ) Each application shall contain assurance that the rates of pay for laborers and mechanics engaged in construction activities will not be less than the prevailing local wage rates for similar work as determined in accordance with the provisions of 40 U.S.C. 3141-3144, 3146, and 3147.
[33 FR 6012, Apr. 19, 1968. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 21966, 21969, May 13, 1996; 79 FR 54616, Sept. 12, 2014]
§ 1.964 Waiver; loan guaranty. ( a ) *General.* Any indebtedness of a veteran or the indebtedness of the spouse shall be waived only when the following factors are determined to exist: ( 1 ) Following default there was a loss of the property which constituted security for the loan guaranteed, insured or made under chapter 37 of title 38 United States Code;
( 2 ) There is no indication of fraud, misrepresentation, or bad faith on the part of the person or persons having an interest in obtaining the waiver; and
( 3 ) Collection of such indebtedness would be against equity and good conscience.
( b ) *Spouse.* The waiver of a veteran's indebtedness shall inure to the spouse of such veteran insofar as concerns said indebtedness, unless the obligation of the spouse is specifically excepted. However, the waiver of the indebtedness of the veteran's spouse shall not inure to the benefit of the veteran unless specifically provided for in the waiver decision.
( c ) *Surviving spouse or former spouse.* A surviving spouse of a veteran or the former spouse of a veteran may be granted a waiver of the indebtedness provided the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are met.
( d ) *Preservation of Government rights.* In cases in which it is determined that waiver may be granted, the action will take such form (covenant not to sue, or otherwise) as will preserve the rights of the Government against obligors other than the veteran or the spouse.
( e ) *Application.* A request for waiver of an indebtedness under this section shall be made within one year after the date on which the debtor receives, by Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested, written notice from VA of the indebtedness. If written notice of indebtedness is sent by means other than Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested, then there is no time limit for filing a request for waiver of indebtedness under this section. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5302(b))
( f ) *Exclusion.* Except as otherwise provided in this section, the indebtedness of a nonveteran obligor under the loan program is excluded from waiver.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5302 (b) and (c))
[39 FR 26400, July 19, 1974, as amended at 44 FR 59907, Oct. 17, 1979; 57 FR 33875, July 31, 1992; 58 FR 3840, Jan. 12, 1993]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 30, 2013

t0722

Order 

Clerk

July 30, 2013

146860

RICHARD W. REMSING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 146860

COA: 309361 

Ingham CC: 09-001638-CZ

CITY OF LANSING, DOMENIC FUCCIOLO,

MURDOCK JEMERSON, PAUL DYKEMA,

BRIGHAM C. SMITH, and BILLIE O’BERRY,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 5, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CRASSOCIATES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

SPECTRUM HEALTHCARE RESOURCES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________ 

2012-5037 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 11-CV-570, Judge Francis M. Allegra. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

KENNETH B. WECKSTEIN, Brown Rudnick, LLP, of 

Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, Assistant Director, 

Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United 

States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued 

for defendant-appellee United States. On the brief were 

STUART F. DELERY, Acting Assistant Attorney General, 

JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. 

Assistant Director, and MICHAEL P. GOODMAN, Trial 

Attorney. 
JAMES G. PEYSTER, Crowell & Moring, LLP, of 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee Spectrum 

Healthcare Resources, Inc. With him on the brief was 

AMY LADERBERG O’SULLIVAN. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

August 14, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 42.65 Expert testimony; tests and data.

(a) Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight. Testimony on United States patent law or patent examination practice will not be admitted.

(b) If a party relies on a technical test or data from such a test, the party must provide an affidavit explaining:

(1) Why the test or data is being used;

(2) How the test was performed and the data was generated;

(3) How the data is used to determine a value;

(4) How the test is regarded in the relevant art; and

(5) Any other information necessary for the Board to evaluate the test and data.