alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GEORGE H. AMICK v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. D-851.

Decided November 2, 1925]

*On Demurrer to Amended Petition*

*Requisition; contract; advisory communication.*— Advice received’ from the Government as to details of manufacture, which if' ignored might result disastrously to the contractor and if fol- . lowed result in the production of extra articles for whicn the Government promised a ready sale, is not a contract nor a taking of the contractor’s property.

*The Reporter's*statement of the case:

*Mr. W. F.*Norris, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Herman J. Galloway,*for the demurrer.

*Mr. Raymond M.*Hudson, opposed.

The petition alleges that the plaintiff had a contract with the Signal Corps, U. S. Army, to furnish 50,000 feet of walnut lumber graded for propellers; that he received a, communication from the Director of Aircraft Production asking him to cut his logs in such manner as to convert the balánce of them into flitches adapted for the manufacture-of gunstocks; that if he would thus cooperate the Ordnance-Department would find him “ a ready sale for same at a price of $80.00 for 1,000 square feet board measure f. o. b. a near-by gunstock mill.”

The petition further alleges that plaintiff replied to this, communication, expressing his acquiescence but objecting" to the price suggested; that he was verbally instructed and. directed by a duly authorized agent of the Government so to cut the logs; that he complied with said communication and verbal instructions, and by refusal of the Government to take said flitches was damaged, etc.

Booth, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The Government demurs to plaintiff’s petition as amended. The alleged cause of action is predicated upon a supposed requisition order. The instrument relied upon appears in the petition; and it, together with the reply of *122the plaintiff, is too lengthy to be repeated here. The material allegations of the petition do not disclose either a contract or requisition order. The petition misconceives the legal effect of a dejiartmental communication addressed to contractors, of which the plaintiff was one, engaged in the manufacture of hardwood lumber. There was no obligation imposed upon the contractor to do more than give voluntary heed to an advisory communication and take advantage of advance information, which if ignored might result disastrously to him. Manifestly the Government had no intention of contracting or taking the plaintiff’s supply of hardwood lumber. What was done was to acquaint the plaintiff with the details of manufacture so as to assure him that under present conditions the Government could and would point out an available customer.

The demurrer will be sustained and the petition dismissed. It is so ordered.

Graham, *Judge;*Hay, *Judge;*Downey, *Judge;*and Campbell, *Chief*Justice, concur.
FILED IN6th COURT OF APPEALS    TEXARKANA, TEXAS1/20/2015 9:56:56 AM      DEBBIE AUTREY              Clerk
#### The Acme Electric Lamp Company, Respondent, v. The Kingston Carriage Company, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the City Court of the .city of New York, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict. Henry B. Twombly, for respondent: Kellogg, Rose *&*Smith (Abram J. Rose and Alfred w. Potter, of counsel), for appellant. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

No opinion.
§ 1.120 Prerefunded or escrowed bonds and obligations secured by Type I securities. ( a ) An obligation qualifies as a Type I security if it is secured by an escrow fund consisting of obligations of the United States or general obligations of a State or a political subdivision, and the escrowed obligations produce interest earnings sufficient for the full and timely payment of interest on, and principal of, the obligation.
( b ) If the interest earnings from the escrowed Type I securities alone are not sufficient to guarantee the full repayment of an obligation, a promise of a State or a political subdivision possessing general powers of taxation to maintain a reserve fund for the timely payment of interest on, and principal of, the obligation may further support a guarantee of the full repayment of an obligation.
( c ) An obligation issued to refund an indirect general obligation may be supported in a number of ways that, in combination, are sufficient at all times to support the obligation with the full faith and credit of the United States or a State or a political subdivision possessing general powers of taxation. During the period following its issuance, the proceeds of the refunding obligation may be invested in U.S. obligations or municipal general obligations that will produce sufficient interest income for payment of principal and interest. Upon the retirement of the outstanding indirect general obligation bonds, the same indirect commitment, such as a lease agreement or a reserve fund, that supported the prior issue, may support the refunding obligation.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             FRONTIER ENERGY CORP.
                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350



      The undersigned, Robert Genesi, in his capacities as President and Acting
Chief Financial Officer of Frontier Energy  Corp.  does hereby certify that the
Form 10-QSB of Frontier Energy Corp. for the quarter  ended June 30, 2007 fully
complies  with  the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)  of  the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934  (15  U.S.C.  78m  or  78o(d))  and  that  the information
contained  in  such Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of Frontier Energy Corp.

      This certification  is given by the undersigned solely for the purpose of
18 U.S.C. 1350 and is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein.


      Executed this 20th day of August, 2007.


                                  /s/  Robert Genesi
				  ------------------
                                  Robert Genesi
                                  President and Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                  Principal Financial Officer
§ 1248.7 Remedial actions. ( a ) Based on its review of reports submitted by the Enterprises and reports issued by independent parties, if FHFA determines that there is misalignment, or the risk of misalignment, FHFA may: ( 1 ) Require an Enterprise to undertake additional analysis, monitoring, or reporting to further the purposes of this part.
( 2 ) Require an Enterprise to change covered programs, policies, and practices that FHFA determines conflict with the purposes of this part.
( b ) To address material misalignment, FHFA may require additional and expedient Enterprise actions based on: ( 1 ) Consultation with the Enterprises regarding the cause of the material misalignment;
( 2 ) Review of Enterprise compliance with previously agreed upon or FHFA-required actions; and
( 3 ) Review of the effectiveness of such actions to determine whether they are achieving the purpose of this part.
( c ) Depending on the severity and cause of any material misalignment, FHFA, in its discretion, may: ( 1 ) Require an Enterprise to terminate a program, policy, or practice; or
( 2 ) Require the competing Enterprise to implement a comparable program, policy, or practice.
( d ) When requiring an Enterprise to terminate a program, policy, or practice, or implement a comparable program, policy, or practice, FHFA will consider: ( 1 ) The effect on TBA-eligible securities pricing and particularly on the prepayment speeds of mortgages underlying TBA-eligible MBS; and
( 2 ) The costs borne by and the benefits likely to accrue to investors, lenders, and mortgage borrowers.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**OPTi Inc.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of OPTi Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, BernardT. Marren, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that: 

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

 

(2)  The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40671

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS GONZALEZ

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:95-CV-822)

October 16, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Luis Gonzalez, federal prison er no. 04434-078, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate,

set aside, or correct sentence. Gonzalez has failed to address the

issue of whet her the magistrate judge’s order denying his postjudgment motion for reconsideration, which was never adopted by the

district court, is appealable. Gonzalez has abandoned any argument

relating to the correctness of the post-judgment order. S ee Yohey

v. Co llins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Thus, this2

appeal is effective as to the dis trict court’s initial order

denying § 2255 relief.

Gonzalez has shown neither cause nor prejudice resulting from

failure to raise arguments regarding sufficiency of the evidence

and “guilt by association” on direct appeal, and he is thereby

procedurally barred from raising these issues in a § 2255 claim.

See United States v. Shaid

, 937 F.2d 228, 231-32 (5th Cir. 1991)(en

banc). Gonzalez has not shown that counsel was ineffective for

failing to question a witness regarding whether Gonzalez stated

that he took responsibility for the vehicle and its contents. S ee

Garland v. Maggio , 717 F.2d 199, 206 (5th Cir. 1983)(“a conscious

and informed decision on trial strategy cannot be the basis for

constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel unless it is so

ill chosen that it permeates the entire trial with obvious

unfairness”). The district court did not err by failing to hold an

evidentiary hearing. S ee United States v. Drummond

, 910 F.2d 284,

285 (5th Cir. 1990).

The district court did not commit plain error, when reviewing

Gonzalez’s § 2255 motion, by not finding that the sentencing court

committed plain error when calculatin g his sentence. S ee United

States v. Vaughn , 955 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1992). Finally, the

district court did not commit plain error in failing to find that

Gonzalez was deprived effective a ssistance of counsel at

sentencing. S ee United States v. S mith , 915 F.2d 959, 963 (5th

Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.3
# C_2022195EN.01001001.xml

| 13.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/10

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

12 May 2022

(2022/C 195/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0408 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,85 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4413 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85293 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5648 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0377 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 139,70 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,2898 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,925 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 382,20 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6680 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9470 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 16,0132 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5163 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3569 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,1702 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6692 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4529 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 341,98 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,8806 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0691 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5235 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 255,73 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5725 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,589 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,150 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,4161 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,2531 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,6670 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0408

JPY

Japanese yen

133,85

DKK

Danish krone

7,4413

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85293

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5648

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0377

ISK

Iceland króna

139,70

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,2898

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,925

HUF

Hungarian forint

382,20

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6680

RON

Romanian leu

4,9470

TRY

Turkish lira

16,0132

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5163

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3569

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,1702

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6692

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4529

KRW

South Korean won

1 341,98

ZAR

South African rand

16,8806

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0691

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5235

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 255,73

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5725

PHP

Philippine peso

54,589

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,150

BRL

Brazilian real

5,4161

MXN

Mexican peso

21,2531

INR

Indian rupee

80,6670

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
# C_2021363EN.01000201.xml

| 9.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/2

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2021/C 363/02)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

EPSO/AD/393/21 - ADMINISTRATORS (AD 6) IN THE FIELD OF DATA PROTECTION

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in Official Journal of the European Union C ... A of 9 September 2021.

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/

---
§ 1240.35 Off-balance sheet exposures. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) An Enterprise must calculate the exposure amount of an off-balance sheet exposure using the credit conversion factors (CCFs) in paragraph (b) of this section.
( 2 ) Where an Enterprise commits to provide a commitment, the Enterprise may apply the lower of the two applicable CCFs.
( 3 ) Where an Enterprise provides a commitment structured as a syndication or participation, the Enterprise is only required to calculate the exposure amount for its pro rata share of the commitment.
( 4 ) Where an Enterprise provides a commitment or enters into a repurchase agreement and such commitment or repurchase agreement, the exposure amount shall be no greater than the maximum contractual amount of the commitment or repurchase agreement, as applicable.
( b ) *Credit conversion factors* — ( 1 ) *Zero percent CCF.* An Enterprise must apply a zero percent CCF to the unused portion of a commitment that is unconditionally cancelable by the Enterprise.
( 2 ) *20 percent CCF.* An Enterprise must apply a 20 percent CCF to the amount of commitments with an original maturity of one year or less that are not unconditionally cancelable by the Enterprise.
( 3 ) *50 percent CCF.* An Enterprise must apply a 50 percent CCF to: ( i ) The amount of commitments with an original maturity of more than one year that are not unconditionally cancelable by the Enterprise; and
( ii ) Guarantees on exposures to the other Enterprise in commingled securities.
( 4 ) *100 percent CCF.* An Enterprise must apply a 100 percent CCF to the amount of the following off-balance sheet items and other similar transactions: ( i ) Guarantees, except guarantees included in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section;
( ii ) Repurchase agreements (the off-balance sheet component of which equals the sum of the current fair values of all positions the Enterprise has sold subject to repurchase);
( iii ) Off-balance sheet securities lending transactions (the off-balance sheet component of which equals the sum of the current fair values of all positions the Enterprise has lent under the transaction);
( iv ) Off-balance sheet securities borrowing transactions (the off-balance sheet component of which equals the sum of the current fair values of all non-cash positions the Enterprise has posted as collateral under the transaction); and
( v ) Forward agreements.
[85 FR 82198, Dec. 17, 2020, as amended at 88 FR 83480, Nov. 30, 2023]
# CA2022088EN.01000101.xml

| 24.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 88/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 88/1

---

Notice amending Innovative Health Initiative Joint Undertaking (IHI JU) – Publication of a vacancy for the function of Executive Director of the Innovative Health Initiative Joint Undertaking (IHI JU) (Temporary Agent – Grade AD 14) – COM/2022/20075

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 48 A of 31 January 2022
  )

(2022/C 88 A/01)

On page 5, ‘Closing date’, first paragraph:

| for: | ‘The closing date for registration is 28 February 2022, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’, |
| --- | --- |

for:

‘The closing date for registration is 28 February 2022, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’,

| read: | ‘The closing date for registration is 14 March 2022, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’. |
| --- | --- |

read:

read:

‘The closing date for registration is 14 March 2022, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’.

---
428 A.2d 608

#### Diane SMITH, Appellant, v. Edward SWIATKOWSKI, D.O. and George B. Slifer, Jr. D.O.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued March 18, 1980.

Filed April 10, 1981.

*134Stephen C. Josel, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Charles Roessing, Philadelphia, for Swiatkowski, appellee.

Joseph R. Davison, Philadelphia, for Slifer, Jr., appellee.

Before HESTER, WICKERSHAM and LIPEZ, JJ.

WICKERSHAM, Judge:

On April 22, 1976, Diane Smith, appellant, brought this action in trespass against defendants alleging medical malpractice. After failing to respond to written interrogatories propounded by the defendants to plaintiff, a judgment of non pros was entered January 26, 1977 pursuant to Philadelphia Civil Rule 4005*(d).

On September 9, 1978 a Motion to Strike was filed, nineteen months after the entry of the judgment of non pros by the prothonotary. The lower court dismissed the motion holding that the Motion to Strike was not promptly filed and because the judgment of non pros was entirely regular under the Court rule cited above. An appeal was taken to this court, and while pending, we decided *Gonzales v. Pro-caccio Bros. Trucking Co.,*268 Pa.Super. 245, 407 A.2d 1338 (1979) and *Tice v. Nationwide,*284 Pa.Super. 220, 425 A.2d 782 (1981).

Instantly we hold that the prothonotary lacked the power to enter judgment and that the judgment so entered was subject to avoidance. Such a judgment must be stricken, if *135as here, an appeal was pending when *Gonzales*was handed down.1

Accordingly, we reverse the order of the lower court, and strike the judgments entered on behalf of appellees.

1

. This appeal was timely filed from the Order of the lower court dated September 28, 1978, *Gonzales*was handed down July 27, 1979. *Cf. Johnson v. Moore Motors Inc.,*285 Pa.Super. 237, 427 A.2d 200 (1981).
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-K of our report dated February 11, 1998 (except for
the matters discussed in Note 15, as to which date is March 31, 1998) included
in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-3240) pertaining to the 1996
Restricted Stock Plan, 1995 Outside Director's Stock Award Plan, and 1993
Employee Stock Incentive Plan for FAC Realty Trust, Inc. and Registration
Statement (333-29491) pertaining to the 1996 Restricted Stock Plan, 1995
Outside Director's Stock Award Plan, 1993 Employee Stock Incentive Plan and
Qualified Employee Stock Purchase Plan for FAC Realty Trust, Inc.

In addition, as independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K of our report dated April 9, 1998,
included in the Registration Statement (333-29491) pertaining to the 1996
Restricted Stock Plan, 1995 Outside Director's Stock Award Plan, 1993 Employee
Stock Incentive Plan and Qualified Employee Stock Purchase Plan for FAC Realty
Trust, Inc.

                                            /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Raleigh, North Carolina,
  April 15, 1998.
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

____________ No. 22

- 30418 Summary Calendar

____________ Morgan Ratley, Plaintiff

— Appellant ,

versus Karla Beck; Craig Webre; Cantrell Davis, Defendants

— Appellees

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:21

- CV

- 2362

_____________________ _________ Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * Morgan Ratley, a pretrial detainee in the Lafourche Parish Correctional Complex, appeals the dismissal of his Section 1983 civil rights complaint as frivolous

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) ; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)

. He contends that his claims concerning his 28

- month confinement in

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir

. R

. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 18, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-30418 Document: 00516716720 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2023No. 22

- 30418

2 administrative segregation, without the requisite procedural safeguards, were not pat ently frivolous.
We review dismissals as frivolous for an abuse of discretion. Berry v. Brady , 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999)

. With the benefit of liberal construction, see J

ennings v. Towers Watson , 11 F.4th 335, 341 (5th Cir. 2021), R atley’s pro se Section 1983 complaint contained allegations having an arguable basis in law and fact

. S ee Berry , 192 F.3d at 507

. S pecific ally , Ratley’s allegation that he has been in administrative segregation for 28 months

— without justification or explanation

— c onstituted an arguable basis in law and fact that a protected liberty interest requiring procedural due process protections was violated

. Butler v. S. Porter , 999 F.3d 287, 296 (5th Cir. 2021) , cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 766 (2022) (citation omitted). Additionally , his allegation that he was placed in administrative segregation solely because of his “charge” or “bond” sets forth an arguable basis in law and fact that his confinement is impermissible pretrial punishment or is arbitr ary , rather than reasonably related to a legitimate penological purpose. See Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520, 535

– 39 (1979)

. The district court abused its discretion when it concluded the claims are frivolous

. W e VACATE the dismissal of Ratley’s complain t and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Case: 22-30418 Document: 00516716720 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2023