alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### COCHRAN v COWAN, Exr.

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9873.

Decided June 17, 1929

George E. Beach, Cleveland, for Cochran.

Paul Howland, Cleveland, for Cowan.

Judges WILLIAMS (6th Dist) and HUGHES & JUSTICE, (3rd Dist) sitting

*459WILLIAMS, J.

It is claimed, however, that the four notes were altered by the decedent by inserting therein 7 per cent as the rate of interest without the assent of the plaintiff. This alteration was a material one and avoided the instruments altered under the provisions of 8239 GC. Although the four notes had been avoided, the indebtedness evidenced thereby had not been satisfied. Both the plaintiff and defendant are seeking relief in this action from a court of equity and the trial court was justified by •the evidence in finding therefrom that the plaintiff was indebted to said decedent’s estate as shown by the four notes in the sum of $2115.94, which amount includes interest at 6 per cent per annum after maturity, and that the A. S. Neale note and mortgage were delivered to the decedent as collateral security, and that the defendant has a lien on the Neale note and mortgage to secure the payment of said sum of $2115.94.

The trial court was not only justified by the evidence in rendering the decree which was rendered in that court, but upon the principles of equity the plaintiff cannot insist that the collateral note and mortgage be delivered to him without doing equity under the written agreement between the plaintiff and the decedent, and the money derived from the A. S. Neale note and mortgage should be applied upon the indebtedness evidenced by the four notes heretofore referred to. In other words, before the plaintiff could receive the A. S. Neale note and mortgage held as collateral, or the proceeds thereof. there must be paid from such proceeds or by the plaintiff the amount which he owes decedent’s estate, under the equitable maxim: “He who seeks equity -must do equity”. The finding of the court below on the cross-petition was strictly in accordance with the principles of equity.

We find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record prejudical to plaintiff in error and that substantial justice has been done between the parties.

The judgment will therefore be affirmed.

Hughes and Justice, JJ, concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11888]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on March 21, 2000, Lifepoint, 
Inc., 10410 Trademark Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, made 
application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for 
the registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of 
controlled substances listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)..............  I
Amphetamine (1100)........................  II
Methamphetamine (1105)....................  II
Phencyclidine (7471)......................  II
Benzoylecgonine (9180)....................  II
Morphine (9300)...........................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The firm plans to use gram quantities of the listed controlled 
substances to manufacture drug abuse test kits.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such substance may file comments or objections 
to the issuance of the proposed registration.
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative 
(CCR), and must be filed no later than July 11, 2000.

    Dated: April 21, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Diversion Control Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-11888 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
EXHIBIT 32.1 -- CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF FIRST CAPITAL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
AND SECTION 1350 OF 18 U.S.C. 63.








I, Alex
Genin, the Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of First
Capital International, Inc. hereby certify that First Capital International,
Inc.'s periodic report on Form 10-Q and the financial statements contained
therein 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 information
contained in the periodic report on Form 10-Q and the financial statements
contained therein fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of the operations of First Capital International,
Inc.








Date:  August
      14, 2008
            
            /s/
      Alex GeninChief
      Executive Officer andActing
      Chief Financial Officer andPrincipal
      Financial Officer
### The Honorable David S. Doty, United State s District Judge for 1 

### the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of t he Honorable Jonathan G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrat e Judge for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 96-2658

___________ Patrick J. Melius, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Frank W. Wood, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

__________ Submitted: January 7, 1997 Filed: January 10, 1997

__________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. PatrickJ. Melius appeals the district court's dismissal withou t 1 prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuan t to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Having carefully reviewed t he record and the parties' briefs , we conclude that the district court's dismissal was correct . Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B.

### -2- A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
forms1a2111309ex10-8.htm


    PROMISSORY
NOTE

    


    


    $
15,000.00                                                                                Dated:  April
26, 2007

    


    Principal
Amount                                $
15,000.00                                           State
of New York

    


    FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the
undersigned hereby jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Mary
Passalaqua, the sum Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00), together with
interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum on the unpaid
balance.  Said sum shall be paid in the manner following:

    


    In full upon demand.

    


    All payments shall be first applied to
interest and the balance to principal.  This note may be prepaid, at
any time, on whole or in part, without penalty.  All prepayments shall
be applied in reverse order of maturity.

    


    This note shall at the option of any
holder hereof be immediately due and payable upon the failure to make any
payment due hereunder within 5 days of its due date.

    


    In the event this note shall be in
default, and placed with an attorney for collection, then the undersigned agree
to pay all reasonable attorney fees and costs of collection.  Payments
not made within five (5) days of due date shall be subject to a late charge of 5
% of said payment.  All payments hereunder shall be made to such
address as may from time to time be designated by any holder
hereof.

    


    The undersigned and all other parties
to this note, whether as endorsers, guarantors or sureties, agree to remain
fully bound hereunder until this note shall be fully paid and waive demand,
presentment and protest and all notices thereto and further agree to remain
bound, notwithstanding any extension, renewal, modification, waiver, or other
indulgence by any holder or upon the discharge or release of any obligor
hereunder or to this note, or upon the exchange, substitution, or release of any
collateral granted as security for this note.  No modification or
indulgence by any holder hereof shall be binding unless in writing; and any
indulgence on any one occasion shall not be an indulgence for any other or
future occasion.  Any modification or change of terms, hereunder
granted by any holder hereof, shall be valid and binding upon each of the
undersigned, notwithstanding the acknowledgment of any of the undersigned, and
each of the undersigned does hereby irrevocably grant to each of the others a
power of attorney to enter into any such modification on their
behalf.  The rights of any holder hereof shall be cumulative and not
necessarily successive.  This note shall take effect as a sealed
instrument and shall be construed, governed and enforced in accordance with the
laws of the State first appearing at the head of this note.  The
undersigned hereby execute this note as principals and not as
sureties.

    


    /s/ John F.
Passalaqua

                                                                                         Borrower-
John F. Passalaqua

    Secretary, Pegasus Tel,
Inc.
§ 77.5 Applicability. ( a ) If you propose any construction or alteration described in § 77.9, you must provide adequate notice to the FAA of that construction or alteration.
( b ) If requested by the FAA, you must also file supplemental notice before the start date and upon completion of certain construction or alterations that are described in § 77.9.
( c ) Notice received by the FAA under this subpart is used to: ( 1 ) Evaluate the effect of the proposed construction or alteration on safety in air commerce and the efficient use and preservation of the navigable airspace and of airport traffic capacity at public use airports;
( 2 ) Determine whether the effect of proposed construction or alteration is a hazard to air navigation;
( 3 ) Determine appropriate marking and lighting recommendations, using FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting;
( 4 ) Determine other appropriate measures to be applied for continued safety of air navigation; and
( 5 ) Notify the aviation community of the construction or alteration of objects that affect the navigable airspace, including the revision of charts, when necessary.
§ 93.155 Aircraft operations. ( a ) When an advisory is received from the Ketchikan Flight Service Station stating that an aircraft is on final approach to the Ketchikan International Airport, no person may taxi onto the runway of that airport until the approaching aircraft has landed and has cleared the runway.
( b ) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person operating a large airplane or a turbine engine powered airplane shall— ( 1 ) When approaching to land at the Ketchikan International Airport, maintain an altitude of at least 900 feet MSL until within three miles of the airport; and
( 2 ) After takeoff from the Ketchikan International Airport, maintain runway heading until reaching an altitude of 900 feet MSL.
#### Section 5 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                   18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Executive
Officer of Fortune Entertainment Corporation, that, to his knowledge, the
quarterly report of the company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the company's financial
condition and results of operations.


May 19, 2004


/s/ Douglas R. Sanderson
Douglas R. Sanderson, Chief Executive Officer
#### E. Carlton Foster et al., Respondents, *v.*George H. R. White, Appellant.

Argued March 2, 1937;

decided March 16, 1937.

*597
      *John E. Sheridan*and *W. Smith O'Brien*for appellant.

*Halsey Sayles*and *Homer C. Pelton*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; and question certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.212 Procedures in certificate cases involving international routes. ( a ) *Applicability.* This section applies to cases involving certificates under section 41102 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII that involve international routes, including applications to obtain, renew, amend, transfer, or remove restrictions in such certificates.
( b ) *Answers to applications.* Answers shall be filed within twenty one (21) days after the filing of the original application.
( c ) *Conforming applications or motions to modify scope.* Any person may file an application for the same authority as sought in an application to obtain, renew, or amend a certificate filed under paragraph (a) of this section. Requests to modify the issues to be decided and to consolidate applications filed in other dockets shall be filed as a “motion to modify scope.” Motions and applications under this section shall include economic data, other facts, and any argument in support of the person's position and must be filed within twenty one (21) days after the original application is filed. Later-filed competing applications shall conform to the base and forecast years used by the original applicant and need not contain traffic and financial data for markets for which data have already been submitted by another person.
( d ) *Answers to conforming applications or motions to modify scope.* Answers to conforming applications and motions to modify scope filed in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the conforming application or motion. Answers may argue that an application should be dismissed. Answers may also seek to consolidate an application filed in another docket if that application conforms to the scope of the proceeding proposed in the motion to modify scope and includes the information prescribed in § 302.202. Answers and applications shall not, however, propose the consideration of additional markets.
( e ) *Order establishing further procedures.* Within 90 days after a complete application is filed, the DOT decisionmaker will issue an order as provided in § 302.210.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4646 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4646

To repeal certain war powers of the President under the Communications 
                              Act of 1934.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 22, 2020

   Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Peters) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal certain war powers of the President under the Communications 
                              Act of 1934.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act 
of 2020''.

SEC. 2. PRESIDENTIAL WAR POWERS UNDER COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.

    (a) In General.--Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 606) is amended--
            (1) by striking subsections (c) through (g); and
            (2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (c).
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 309(h) of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(h)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``and'' before ``(2)''; and
            (2) by striking ``Act;'' and all that follows and inserting 
        ``Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
NUMBER 13-12-00360-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ELIZABETH LAHAYE, Appellant,

v.

DONNIE THOMPSON, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ESTATE OF 

W.H. THOMPSON (WILLIAM HUGHES 

THOMPSON REVOCABLE TRUST), Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 197th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This appeal was abated by this Court on June 25, 2012, due to the bankruptcy of 

one of the parties to this appeal. See 11 U.S.C. ' 362; see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 8. 

This cause is now before the Court on the parties’ joint motion to dismiss appeal on 
2

grounds that the parties have settled and compromised their differences. The parties 

request that this Court dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, this case is hereby 

REINSTATED.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and the parties’ joint motion to 

dismiss, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). 

The parties’ joint motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. 

In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party 

incurring same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court 

will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at the parties’

request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

31st day of January, 2013.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4618 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 549
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4618

 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief for 
   the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 17, 2020

Mr. Portman (for himself and Mr. Tillis) introduced the following bill; 
                     which was read the first time

                           September 21, 2020

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief for 
   the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the following sums in this Act are appropriated, out of any money 
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, namely:

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

            PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency

                          disaster relief fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

    For an additional amount for ``Disaster Relief Fund'' 
$86,600,000,000, to remain available until expended:  Provided, That 
the amount provided herein is designated by the Congress as being for 
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
901(b)(2)(A)(i)).
    This Act may be cited as the ``Ensuring Relief for Americans 
Impacted by Economic and Natural Disasters Act, 2020''.
                                                       Calendar No. 549

116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4618

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief for 
   the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 21, 2020

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
Order entered October 30, 2014 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01347-CV 

IN RE KEVIN MENNIEFEE, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 86th District Court 

Kaufman County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 28736A-86 

ORDER 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding. 

/s/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

 JUSTICE
Exhibit 21.0



Subsidiaries of Pulaski Financial Corp.



Registrant



Pulaski Financial Corp.



|Subsidiaries (1)                |  | Percentage of Ownership |  | Jurisdiction or State of Incorporation
|------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Pulaski Bank                    |  | 100%                    |  | United States                         
|                                |  |                        
|Pulaski Service Corporation (2) |  | 100%                    |  | Missouri                              

---

|(1) | The operations of the subsidiaries of the Registrant are included in the Registrants Consolidated Financial Statements contained in the Annual Report to Stockholders.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Wholly-owned by Pulaski Bank
|--- | ----------------------------