alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CAMPBELL *v.*ENGLISH AND WIFE.

Child’s share of estate — payment to guardian out of office — administrator’s liability on the bond, for moneys received on a sale of land, under a proceeding for partition — child’s declarations.

Monej's received by an administrator as the proceeds of land sold under a petition of partition, are within the condition of the administrator’s bond.

A guardian for a female under twelve years has no authority to receive mone)'for his ward, after she attain that age — payment to a guardian after his authority has ceased, is no payment.

The declarations of the ward as to the manner of her dealing with her guardian, cannot affect her legal rights.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas. Upon the record, the following questions are submitted to the Court, the determination of which, will affirm or reverse the judgment of the court below.

1. Is the security upon an administrator’s bond, liable for money coming into the administrator’s hands as the proceeds of a sale of land upon petition for partition, by the heirs of the intestate.

2. Will payment of a child’s distributive share of the estate to the guardian of a female, (who was appointed when the ward was under twelve years) *after*she attained the age of twelve years, be a discharge of the ward’s claim?

3. In such a case, would it be proper to admit in evidence, the acknowledgment of the ward, after she attained *full*age, that she *dealt*with her guardian, *as guardian,*after she was twelve years' old?

*J.*and *D. L. Collier,*for the plaintiff, in error.

*Goodenow*and *C. J. Wright,*contra.

Lane, J.

The sale of land upon a petition for partition, is one of the duties enjoined by law in certain cases upon the administrator, and is, therefore, embraced in the bond for the performance of his duties. 4 O. N. 127.

A guardian for a female under twelve years, continues only till the ward attains to that age. A guardian, or a man that has been guardian, *after his guardianship has*expired, has no more power than if he had never been appointed. The money, in this case, was due the child, and the payment to one having no authority is no payment. If proof were admitted, that the child said, after she was of full age, that she had dealt with her former guardian, *as guardian,*how would it avail? Would her acts, while an infant, change the law? We should think not.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### INDUSTRIAL BANKERS OF AMERICA, INC., v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. M-417.

Decided January 9, 1933]

*Mr. Ralph G. Williamson*and *Mr. Charles F. Kineheloe*for the demurrer.

*Mr. Jackson R.*Collins, opposed.

Littleton, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This suit was instituted to recover $546.46, with interest, alleged overpayment of income tax for 1928.

Plaintiff was incorporated under the laws of Delaware and, on June 1, 1928, acquired control of the Hart Loan Society, a Delaware corporation. The last-mentioned company sustained a net loss of $9,516.99 for the calendar year 1926 and had a net income of $2,696.93 for the calendar year 1921 and a net income of $3,340.83 for the period January 1 to May 31, 1928, prior to its affiliation with plaintiff.

The Hart Loan Society applied $1,622.33 of the 1926 net loss against its net income for 1921 remaining after deducting $1,014.60 for net loss for the calendar year 1925, and applied the total of its net income for the period January 1 to May 31, 1928, against said net loss for 1926, leaving unabsorbed $4,553.83 of the 1926 net loss. For the taxable period June 1 to December 31, 1928, the income of the Hart Loan Society was included in a consolidated return with *752the plaintiff, which return showed a net loss of $7,003.54 which included a deduction of $4,553.83, the unabsorbed portion of the 1926 net loss of the Hart Loan Society. The Hart Loan Society had no income for the period ending December 31, 1928, for which the consolidated return was filed. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue refused to allow the plaintiff the deduction of $4,553.83, net loss of the Hart Loan Society for 1926, and determined an additional tax of $1,719.46. Had the loss of $4,553.83 of the Hart Loan Society for 1926 been allowed as a deduction in the consolidated return filed by the plaintiff, the additional tax for the period ending December 31, 1928, would have been $1,173, or $546.46 less than was assessed and collected.- Plaintiff duly filed a claim for refund which the Commissioner disallowed.

Plaintiff’s cause of action is based on the contention that a corporation having a loss prior to the date of becoming affiliated with another corporation is entitled to have the amount of said loss deducted in arriving at the net income under a consolidated return for a period after the affiliation date, even though the corporation having the prior net loss had no income in the period for which the consolidated return was filed, which period, in this case, was in 1928. We are of opinion that the allegations of the petition do not state a cause of action against the United States, and that under *Woolford Realty Co.,*Inc., v. *United*States, 286 U.S. 319, *Prosperity Co., Inc.,*27 B.T.A. 28, and *Crossett Western Co.,*27 B.T.A. 258, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. The demurrer is sustained and the petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Whaley, *Judge;*Williams, *Judge;*and Green, *Judge,*concur.

Booth, *Chief Justice,*took no *part*in the decision of this case on account of illness.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                          14,717
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               147,197
<PP&E>                                          69,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,922,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,762,385
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,614
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,158,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,922,570
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,122,463
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  828,110
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                294,353
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            294,353
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   294,353
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
State ofCalifornia AIR RESOURCES BOARD EXECUTIVE ORDER R-13-005 Relating to the Heavy-Duty OnboardDiagnostic System Requirements WHEREAS, on August 23, 2012, theAir Resources Board (ARB or Board) conducted a public hearing to considerthe adoption ofamendments to California's On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for Passenger Cars, Light-DutyTrucks, and MediumDuty Vehicles and Engines (OBD II) and Heavy Duty Engine On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements (HD OBD) requirements to updatethe diesel monitoring requirements, to make some requirements consistent between the HD OBD and OBD II regulations, and to clarify and improve the regulation where necessary, as setforth in the Initial Statement of Reasons released to the public on July 5, 2012; WHEREAS, following the public hearing

**on~**August 23,2012, the Board adopted Resolution 12-29, in which the Board approved amendments to sections 1968.2, 1968.5, 1971.1, and 1971.5, title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), as setforth in Attachments A, B, C, and D, as modified by suggested modifications as setforth in Attachment E; WHEREAS, Resolution 12-29directed the Executive Officerto take final action to adopt the regulatory amendments setforth in AttachmentsA, B, C, and D to Resolution 12-29, as modified by suggested modifications set forth in Attachment E to Resolution 12-29, along with such other conforming modifications as may be appropriate, to make the modified regulatory language and any additional supporting documents and information available to the public for a period ofat least 15 days, to consider such written comments as may be submitted during this period, and to make such modifications as may be appropriate in light ofthe comments received, orto presentthe regulatory amendments to the Board forfurther consideration ifhe determines that this is warranted; WHEREAS, on January 4, 2013, the modified regulations, reflecting the amendments approved bythe Board and other changes madeto best reflect the intent ofthe Board at

. the hearing, were made available for public commentfor a period of 15-days, with the

changes to the originally proposed text clearly indicated, in accordancewith the provisions oftitle 1, California Code of Regulations, section 44; and WHEREAS, written comments were received during the 15-day comment period and those comments have been considered by the Executive Officer. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED thatthe recitals and findings contained in Resolution 12-29 are incorporated by reference herein.Executive Order R-.13-005 -2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat amendmentsto

### secti~ns 1968.2, 1968.5, 1971.1, and 1971.5, title 13, CCR, are adopted as.setforth inAttachment 1 hereto. Executed.this 261hdayofJllne2013? at Sacramento, California.

',

... '

Attachment

-_i.

I;,

.. "'·
###### Editorial Note on Part 741

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 741 appear at 84 FR 1608, Feb. 5, 2019.

#### § 741.224 Golden parachute and indemnification payments.

Any credit union insured pursuant to title II of the Act must adhere to the requirements stated in part 750 of this chapter.

[76 FR 30517, May 26, 2011]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6351

MACEO GARDNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK PERRY, Secretary of N.C. Dept. of Public Safety,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief 

District Judge. (5:13-hc-02272-D)

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maceo Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Maceo Gardner seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Gardner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.
3

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.2

                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                        TO THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                             SAF T LOK INCORPORATED

Pursuant to Section 607.1006 of the Business Corporation Act of the State of
Florida, the undersigned, being the President of SAF T LOK INCORPORATED, a
Florida corporation (the "Corporation"), a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the Business Corporation Act of the State of Florida
bearing Document #L01153 does hereby certify:

         The Board of Directors and majority of the Shareholders approve the
amendment to the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation as follows:

         Article IV of the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation as amended
and restated shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

                                   ARTICLE IV
                                  CAPITAL STOCK

         The maximum number of shares that this Corporation shall be authorized
to issue and have outstanding at any one time shall be thirty million
(30,000,000) shares of Common Stock, par value $.0l per share, all of which
shares shall be issued and fully paid and non-assessable.

         1. The foregoing amendment was adopted by Written Consent by the Board
of Directors on November 15, 1999, pursuant to Section 607.0821 of the Florida
Business Corporation Act.

         2. An annual meeting of the Shareholders of the Corporation was held on
February 7, 2000, at which the foregoing amendment was submitted to the
Corporation's Shareholders and adopted by holders of a majority of the
outstanding voting power of the Corporation pursuant to Section 607.0701 of the
Florida Business Corporation Act. Therefore, the number of votes cast for the
amendment to the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation was sufficient for
approval.


<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Corporation has caused this Amendment to be
         signed in its name by its President and Chief Executive Officer this
         4th day of April 2000.


                                          /s/ Franklin W. Brooks
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          FRANKLIN W. BROOKS
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
# L_2021318EN.01000101.xml

| 9.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 318/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 318/1

---

Corrigendum to EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 24 February 2021 replacing the Annex to the Guidelines on short-term export-credit insurance [2021/1238]

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 271 of 29 July 2021
  )

On the cover page, and on page 1, in the title:

for:

‘EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 24 February 2021 replacing the Annex to the Guidelines on short-term export-credit insurance [2021/1238]’,

read:

‘EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 12/21/COL of 24 February 2021 replacing the Annex to the Guidelines on short-term export-credit insurance [2021/1238]’.

---
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 78 (Friday, April 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10129]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts


President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities: Meeting 
XLVIII

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting 
of the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities will be 
held on April 28, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 12:30 p.m. The 
meeting will be held at the State House Convention center, Little Rock, 
Arkansas.
    The Committee meeting will begin at 9 a.m. with opening remarks by 
Chairman Dr. John Brademas and Executive Director's remarks from 
Harriet Mayor Fulbright. This will be followed by a special 
presentation on the ``State of the Arts & Humanities in Arkansas.'' The 
Committee will hear presentations from John W. Roberts, Deputy Chairman 
of the National Endowments for the Humanities, and Lee Kessler, 
Director, Federal Partnerships for the National Endowment for the Arts, 
and Mamie Bittner, Director of Public and Legislative Affairs for the 
Institute of Museum & Library Services. There will also be Task Force 
Reports on Ethnic Diversity (presented by Peggy Cooper Cafritz), ``Tutu 
& Franklin: A Journey Towards Peace'' (presented by Renee Poussaint) 
and Education (presented by Rich Gurin).
    The President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities was 
created by Executive Order in 1982 to advise the President, the two 
Endowments, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services on 
measures to encourage private sector support for the nation's cultural 
institutions and to promote public understanding of the arts and the 
humanities.
    If, in the course of discussion, it becomes necessary for the 
Committee to discuss non-public commercial or financial information of 
intrinsic value, the Committee will go into closed session pursuant to 
subsection (c)(4) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
    Any interested persons may attend as observers, on a space 
available basis, but seating is limited. Therefore, for this meeting, 
individuals wishing to attend must contact Georgianna Paul of the 
President's Committee in advance at (202) 682-5409 or write to the 
Committee at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 526, Washington, DC 
20506. Further information with reference to this meeting can also be 
obtained from Ms. Paul.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please 
contact Ms. Paul through the Office of AccessAbility, National 
Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-TDD 202/682-5496.

    Dated: April 18, 2000.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 00-10129 Filed 4-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, John Hanna, Chief Executive Officer of The Fashion House Holdings, Inc., (the “Company”),certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of The Fashion House Holdings, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, 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 and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        *Date: August 17, 2006* */s/ John Hanna*   *By: John Hanna*   *Chief Executive Officer*
§ 344.9 Personal securities trading reporting by officers and employees of FDIC-supervised institutions. ( a ) *Officers and employees subject to reporting.* FDIC-supervised institution officers and employees who: ( 1 ) Make investment recommendations or decisions for the accounts of customers;
( 2 ) Participate in the determination of such recommendations or decisions; or
( 3 ) In connection with their duties, obtain information concerning which securities are being purchased or sold or recommend such action, must report to the FDIC-supervised institution, within 30-calendar days after the end of the calendar quarter, all transactions in securities made by them or on their behalf, either at the FDIC-supervised institution or elsewhere in which they have a beneficial interest. The report shall identify the securities purchased or sold and indicate the dates of the transactions and whether the transactions were purchases or sales.
( b ) *Exempt transactions.* Excluded from this reporting requirement are: ( 1 ) Transactions for the benefit of the officer or employee over which the officer or employee has no direct or indirect influence or control;
( 2 ) Transactions in registered investment company shares;
( 3 ) Transactions in government securities; and
( 4 ) All transactions involving in the aggregate $10,000 or less during the calendar quarter.
( c ) *Alternative report.* Where an FDIC-supervised institution acts as an investment adviser to an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the FDIC-supervised institution's officers and employees may fulfill their reporting requirement under paragraph (a) of this section by filing with the FDIC-supervised institution the “access persons” personal securities trading report required by SEC Rule 17j-1, 17 CFR 270.17j-1.