alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### RICHARDS v. FRIEDLY.

Chancery — seduction—setting case for hearing on bill and answer.

When a case is set for hearing on bill and answer, the answer is taken as true.

Relief will not be decreed where the conduct of the complainant is against good morals.

Chan cert. The case was fonnerly before the court on a demurrer to the bill: (see ante 167, where the caséis stated.) The defendant having now filed his answer, denying all fraud, admitting the giving the note, and that all of it remains unpaid but eighteen dollars, and alleging, that he was young and inexperienced, and the complainant a widow several years his senior: that he was passing the house in the road, when she called him in, shut the door, and then threw herself on the bed and asked him to come to her, telling him there was no one about the house, and he need not fear any harm from coming to her, whereupon he went to bed with her, &c. In seven months afterwards she had twins, swore them upon him, had him arrested, and while under arrest he .gave the note. He called afterwards several times to pay a little on the note as he earned it. The last time he called, she told him it was unconscionable to make him pay, and asked him to marry her — he replied he never would marry a woman that held such a note upon him. She then said it was wrong to keep it, and then took the note from the drawer and burnt it up. He then left her, supposing himself clear, and has never seen her since. The cause is set for hearing on bill and answer.

By the Court.

Every allegation in the bill, on which the. demurrer was overruled at the last term, is negatived by the answer, and a state of case made, equally shocking to good morals and dis- *754' graceful to the complainant. This state of case we must take as true, as the case is set for hearing on the bill and answer. Let the bill be dismissed at the complainant’s costs.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00245-CR

Steven Vela

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 20FC-2780F

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 24, 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NORWOOD PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
AUGUST 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,609
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,924
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (642)
<INVENTORY>                                     32,105
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,724
<PP&E>                                          35,355
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,214)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,194
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,848
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,829
<OTHER-SE>                                       (553)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   135,194
<SALES>                                        175,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               175,835
<CGS>                                          125,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,732
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,945
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,002
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,156
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,091
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,065
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (4,820)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (241)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,004
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000             DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-02-2000             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           6,025                   6,025
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,364                  43,364
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,063                   2,063
<INVENTORY>                                    100,048                 100,048
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               162,882                 162,882
<PP&E>                                          87,168                  87,168
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,230                  39,230
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 338,919                 338,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,794                  72,794
<BONDS>                                        138,700                 138,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           19,679                  19,679
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,945                  60,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   338,919                 338,919
<SALES>                                        145,457                 340,650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,457                 340,650
<CGS>                                           89,085                 211,459
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   89,085                 211,459
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,515                 101,324
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,417                  12,336
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,440                  15,531
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,382                   6,211
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,058                   9,320
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,058                   9,320
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Broadcasting Board of Governors

# DATE AND TIME:

May 2, 2000; 9:30 A.M.

# PLACE:

Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20237.

# CLOSED MEETING:

The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will meet in closed session on May 2, 2000, to review and discuss a number of issues relating to U.S. Government-funded non-military international broadcasting. If necessary, the meeting will continue the following day for approximately an hour beginning at 9:00 a.m. They will address internal procedural, budgetary, and personnel issues, as well as sensitive foreign policy issues relating to potential options in the U.S. international broadcasting field. This meeting is closed because if open it likely would either disclose matters that would be properly classified to be kept secret in the interest of foreign policy under the appropriate executive order (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(9)(B)). In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely to the internal personnel and organizational issues of the BBG or the International Broadcasting Bureau. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(2) and (6)).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Personss interested in obtaining more information should contact either Brenda Hardnett or John Lindburg at (202) 401-3736.

Dated: April 24, 2000.

John A. Lindburg,

Legal Counsel and Acting Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 00-10559  Filed 4-24-00; 4:41 pm]

BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Eric H. Edwards, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of QueenstakeResources Ltd.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by theannual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

Date:  March 30, 2006

 

 
| /s/ Eric H. Edwards                                                  |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Eric H. Edwards, Vice President Finance and  Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
#### Holland *v.*The State.

*Arson.*

(Decided February 12, 1914.

64 South. 649.)

*Appeal and Error; Record; Judgment to Support.*— Where the record shows no finding of guilt by the jury, and no judgment of guilt or sentence by the court, there is nothing upon which to base an appeal, and the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal from Barbour Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. M. Sollie.

Will Holland was convicted of arson and he appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

Winn & Winn, for appellant.

Counsel discuss the appeal and the assignments of error based thereon, together with citation of authority, but in view of the opinion it is not deemed necessary to here set them out.

*239B. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Counsel insist that on the record there is nothing to support the appeal, and that it should be dismissed.

THOMAS, J.

The transcript in this case shows only an organization of the trial court, an indictment for arson in the second degree, a bill of exceptions, and the clerk’s certificate of appeal. The record shows no finding of guilt by the jury, no judgment of guilt or sentence by the court, and consequently no judgment of conviction that will support an appeal, and a dismissal must necessarily *follow.*— Perry *v.*State, 4 Ala. App. 70, 59 South. 230, and cases there cited; *Palmer v.*State, 168 Ala. 124, 53 South. 283.

Appeal dismissed.
§ 46.6 Stress test methodologies and practices. ( a ) *Potential impact on capital.* During each quarter of the planning horizon, a covered institution shall estimate the following for each scenario required to be used: ( 1 ) Pre-provision net revenues, losses, loan loss provisions, and net income, and
( 2 ) The potential impact on the covered institution's regulatory capital levels and ratios applicable to the covered institution under 12 CFR part 3 and any other capital ratios specified by the OCC, incorporating the effects of any capital actions over the planning horizon and maintenance by the covered institution of an allowance for loan losses appropriate for credit exposures throughout the planning horizon.
( b ) *Planning horizon.* A covered institution must use a minimum planning horizon of at least nine quarters, beginning with the first day of the period covered by the stress tests.
( c ) *Controls and oversight of stress test processes.* ( 1 ) The senior management of the covered institution must establish and maintain a system of controls, oversight, and documentation, including policies and procedures, designed to ensure that the stress test processes used by the covered institution satisfy the requirements in this part. These policies and procedures must, at a minimum, describe the covered institution's stress test practices and methodologies, and processes for validating and updating the covered institution's stress test practices and methodologies consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and supervisory guidance.
( 2 ) The board of directors of the covered institution, or a committee thereof, shall approve and review the policies and procedures of the covered institution's stress testing processes as frequently as economic conditions or the condition of the institution may warrant, but no less than once every reporting year. The board of directors and senior management must be provided with a summary of the stress test results.
[77 FR 61246, Oct. 9, 2012, as amended at 79 FR 71633, Dec. 3, 2014; 84 FR 54476, Oct. 10, 2019; 84 FR 56376, Oct. 22, 2019]
1

The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3156

___________

All American Semiconductor, Inc., *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., * [UNPUBLISHED]

National Association, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 16, 2004

Filed: August 3, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., appeals from the district court’s1

 order

granting All American Semiconductor, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment,

contending that the district court incorrectly applied the “strict compliance” standard

for attempts to draw on letters of credit under Minnesota law and that the court should

instead have granted summary judgment in its favor. We affirm.
-2-

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Angelo

Iafrate Constr., LLC v. Potashnick Constr., Inc., 370 F.3d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 2004).

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c). We agree with the district court that All American is entitled to summary

judgment if there is no question of fact that its documentary presentation “met

Minnesota’s ‘strict compliance’ standard for letter of credit transactions.” D. Ct.

Order of Jan. 3, 2003, at 3. 

Having reviewed the record and briefs, we agree with the district court’s wellreasoned analysis in its orders of March 7, 2002, January 3, 2003 and July 21, 2003.

Minnesota law requires that the issuer of a letter of credit honor a beneficiary’s draft

presentation if it “appears on its face strictly to comply with the terms and conditions

of the letter of credit,” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 336.5-108(a) (2002), adopting the UCC

concept of strict compliance not as absolute perfectionism, but as complying with

standard practice for issuers. See Minn. Stat. Ann. § 336.5-108, cmt. 1 (2003)

(incorporating the U.C.C. comment); Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corp. v. Bank of

China, 167 F.Supp. 2d 940, 947 (S.D. Tex. 2000) (interpreting language virtually

identical to that of Minnesota law and using a common sense, case-by-case approach

to strict compliance to hold that minor deviations that do not bring into question the

obvious link between the documents presented as a whole do not justify dishonor by

the issuer), aff’d on other grounds, 288 F.3d 262 (5th Cir. 2002). All American’s

draw presentation met that standard because its documentary presentation, when

viewed as a whole, complied with the requirements in the letter of credit, and the

minor discrepancies claimed by Wells Fargo did not justify rejection of the draw.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Top of page

Skip to main content

Library of Congress

              - Discover
              - Services
              - Visit
              - Education
              - Connect
              - Shop *external link*
              - Donate
              - About
              - Ask a Librarian
              - Help
              - Contact
              - Search Online Catalog
              - Copyright.gov
              - Congress.gov

Library of Congress
Digital Collections
World Digital Library
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 National Science Foundation
 In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meetings: *Name:*
                         Special Emphasis Panel in Materials Research (DMR) #1203 *Dates & Times:* Date
Room No.
TimeMay 9-11, 2000
390 (5/9): 375 (5/10, 11)
7:30 A.M.-10:00 P.M.May 16-18, 2000
375
7:30 A.M.-10:00 P.M.May 23-25, 2000
375
7:30 A.M.-10:00 P.M.May 31-June 2, 2000
1060 (5/31): 1020 (6/1, 2)
7:30 A.M.-10:00 P.M.June 13-14, 2000
365 (6/13): 380 (6/14)
8:30 A.M.-6:00 P.M.
 *Place:*
                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. *Type of Meeting:*
                         Closed. *Contact Persons:*
                         Dr. Ulrich Strom, Program Director, Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSEC), Division of Materials Research, Room 1065, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 306-1832. *Purpose of Meeting:*
                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support. The format is in the form of reverse site visits. *Agenda:*
                         Review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process to determine finalists considered for support for the MRSEC proposals submitted in response to program solicitation number NSF 99-125. *Reason for Closing:*
                         The activity being evaluated may include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b. (c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. Dated: April 19, 2000. Karen J. York, Committee Management Officer.


[FR Doc. 00-10127 Filed 4-21-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-M