alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### D. R. Saunders *et al., Plaintiffs in Error,*v. S. G. Collins, *Defendant in Error.*

Where the mandatory statutory requirement as to the publication of the notice of an application for a tax deed has not been complied with, the deed is void, and the failure to make the statutory publication may be shown after the deed is admitted in evidence.

This case was decided by the Court En Banc.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

*274The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Blount*& *Blount*& *Garter,*for Plaintiffs in Error;

*J. W. KeJvoe,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam

— This writ of error was taken to a judgment awarding damages for trespass upon real property alleged to belong to S. G. Collins. The right of Collins to maintain the action is based upon a tax deed issued March 8th, 1904. The deed was issued upon a tax sale certificate of December 1901.

Section 8 of Chapter 4888, which became effective September 1st, 1901, now Section 574, of the General Statutes of 1906, provides that “No tax deeds for lands sold for taxes shall issue until the Clerk of the Circuit Court shall have given at least thirty days previous notice of the application for a deed by publishing the same once a week in some newspaper in the County” &c. The proof shows that the publication began February 12th, 1904, and the deed was issued March 8th, 1904. The mandatory provision-as to publication being intended for the benefit of the land owner and not being complied with, the tax deed is void. See Clark Ray Co. v. Williford decided this term.

The introduction of the deed was not objected to on this ground, but such objection would have been unavailing since the tax deed is by the statute made *prima facie*evidence of the regularity of the proceedings. Saunders v. Collins 56 Fla. 534, 47 South. Rep. 958.

The tax deed was properly admitted in evidence over the objections made to its introduction, but this did not debar the defendants of the right to over come the *prima*
      *275
      *facie*effect of tbe tax deed by showing its invalidity by proper evidence as was done when it was made to appear •without objection that the publication of the notice of the application for the tax deed was not made for thirty days as required by the mandatory provisions of the statute.

The judgment is reversed.

Whitfield, C. J. and Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Banking Act of 1935

              																	United States. Congress. House. Committee on Banking and Currency, 1865-1974					 and 	Seventy-Fourth Congress, 1935-1937. 						*Banking Act of 1935 : Report (To Accompany H.R. 7617)*,										April 19, 1935,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/996,			accessed on September 19, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7573

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME DERRICK HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:96-cr-00260-PJM) Submitted: June 29, 2007 Decided: July 19, 2007 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Derrick Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* In calculating the file date of his notice of appeal, we have given Harris the benefit of Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988) and Fed. R. App. P. 4(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Jerome Derrick Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered judgment on August 11, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on August 31, 2006. *Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remanded to the district court to determine whether Harris had grounds to extend the appeal period. On remand, the district court found Harris had no grounds for an extension of the period. Because Harris failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 91.883 Special flight authorizations for jet airplanes weighing 75,000 pounds or less. ( a ) After December 31, 2015, an operator of a jet airplane weighing 75,000 pounds or less that does not comply with Stage 3 noise levels may, when granted a special flight authorization by the FAA, operate that airplane in the contiguous United States only for one of the following purposes: ( 1 ) To sell, lease, or use the airplane outside the 48 contiguous States;
( 2 ) To scrap the airplane;
( 3 ) To obtain modifications to the airplane to meet Stage 3, Stage 4, or Stage 5 noise levels.
( 4 ) To perform scheduled heavy maintenance or significant modifications on the airplane at a maintenance facility located in the contiguous 48 States;
( 5 ) To deliver the airplane to an operator leasing the airplane from the owner or return the airplane to the lessor;
( 6 ) To prepare, park, or store the airplane in anticipation of any of the activities described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section;
( 7 ) To provide transport of persons and goods in the relief of an emergency situation; or
( 8 ) To divert the airplane to an alternative airport in the 48 contiguous States on account of weather, mechanical, fuel, air traffic control, or other safety reasons while conducting a flight in order to perform any of the activities described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(7) of this section.
( b ) An operator of an affected airplane may apply for a special flight authorization for one of the purposes listed in paragraph (a) of this section by filing an application with the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy. Except for emergency relief authorizations sought under paragraph (a)(7) of this section, applications must be filed at least 30 days in advance of the planned flight. All applications must provide the information necessary for the FAA to determine that the planned flight is within the limits prescribed in the law.
[Doc. No. FAA-2013-0503, 78 FR 39583, July 2, 2013, as amended by Docket FAA-2015-3782, Amdt. 91-349, 82 FR 46132, Oct. 4, 2017]
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

US Fish & Wildlife Service

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge
Jefferson County, CO

Boulder County

‘Jefferson County

Technology Center

Broomfield County *

INDIANA STREET |

Alternative D a 1 2 Mites A
Roads and Trails December 2003 "

[) ott-Trail Use Area
sm==== Trails Converted From Existing Roads
sane== Newly Constructed Trails
=== Unpaved Roads (Publicly Accessible)
== Access Road

1 New Trail ID (See Table 12)

(CG doe Retained Area (Subject to Change)
Figure no. 25

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and EIS 47
[No. 20915-6-III.

Division Three.

December 12, 2002.]

#### Sharon Sue Brinkmeyer, *Appellant,*v. LeMaster and Daniels, P.L.L.C., et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 98-2-05892-1, Ellen K. Clark, J., entered January 29, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kato, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Kurtz, J.
#### HUDSON v. JONES.

(Decided January 20, 1916.)

Appeal from Covington Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

No counsel marked for appellant. Jones “& Powell, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of prosecution.
12034

#### AUGUSTA POWER COMPANY *ET AL.*v. SAVANNAH RIVER ELECTRIC COMPANY

(161 S. E., 767)

*555*Messrs. Watkins, Asbill & Watkins, Fleming & Fleming*and *Mays & Feather stone,*for appellant,

*556*Messrs. Hull, Barrett •& Willingham, J. William Thurmond, Grier, Park & McDonald,*for respondent, cite:

*557November 26, 1930.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

Taken in connection with the opinion of the Court in the case of *Twin City Power Company v. Savannah River Rlectric*Company, 163 S. C., 438, 161 S. E., 750, now in process of decision, the order of his Honor, Judge Dennis, is entirely satisfactory, and is affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Brease, Stabrer and Carter concur.
#### Charles Burkle, Respondent, *v.*William B. Boothby, Appellant.

Argued December 2, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.

*478
      *Luther Ira Webster*for appellant.

*David B. Sugarman*and *Walter H. Puiziger*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
#### THRAVES v WHITE CITY BEACH ASSN

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Sandusky Co

No. 218.

Decided Oct. 8, 1929

Stahl, Stahl & Stahl and M. G. Thraves, all of Fremont, for Thraves.

James G. Hunt and I. G. Stout, both of Fremont, for Association.

BY THE COURT

Since proceedings in error were not instituted to reverse the order of the court vacating the judgment and the time within which such proceedings might have been instituted has elapsed, the order so made is effective and can not now be disturbed.

The judgment being thus vacated, an. answer was filed by the defendant, in effect a general denial, and on the issues so made a trial was had resulting in a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff now seeks to reverse the judgment entered on this verdict.

The evidence clearly shows that the alleged account stated was approved only by the president and secretary of the defendant and therefore could not in any event bind the association because the so-called declaration of trust "does not confer upon the president and secretary the authority to employ attorneys or other agents or to enter into contracts except by affirmative action of the board of trustees. We have carefully examined the record, and finding no error therein, affirm the judgment.

Williams, Lloyd and Richards, JJ, concur.
#### § 382.5 When are U.S. and foreign carriers required to begin complying with the provisions of this part?

As a U.S. or foreign carrier, you are required to comply with the requirements of this part on May 13, 2009, except as otherwise provided in individual sections of this part.
§ 61.307 What tests do I have to take to obtain a sport pilot certificate? To obtain a sport pilot certificate, you must pass the following tests: ( a ) *Knowledge test.* You must pass a knowledge test on the applicable aeronautical knowledge areas listed in § 61.309. Before you may take the knowledge test for a sport pilot certificate, you must receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who trained you or reviewed and evaluated your home-study course on the aeronautical knowledge areas listed in § 61.309 certifying you are prepared for the test.
( b ) *Practical test.* You must pass a practical test on the applicable areas of operation listed in §§ 61.309 and 61.311. Before you may take the practical test for a sport pilot certificate, you must receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who provided you with flight training on the areas of operation specified in §§ 61.309 and 61.311 in preparation for the practical test. This endorsement certifies that you meet the applicable aeronautical knowledge and experience requirements and are prepared for the practical test.
#### Aaron Segall, Appellant, *v.*Herman Mendlowitz et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Others.

Argued March 10, 1937;

decided March 25, 1937.

*Eugene L. Bondy*and *Norman Winer*for appellant.

*Irving J. W. Marx, Leslie Handler*and *Nathan Friedman*for respondents.

*638Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
[No. 27097-8-II.

Division Two.

December 6, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Alegandro Carmen Galan, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 00-1-00894-2, James E. Warme, J., entered March 6, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per QuinnBrintnall, A.C. J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Bridgewater, JJ.
§ 60.11 FSTD use. No person may use or allow the use of or offer the use of an FSTD for flight crewmember training or evaluation or for obtaining flight experience to meet any of the requirements under this chapter unless, in accordance with the QPS for the specific device, the FSTD meets all of the following: ( a ) Has a single sponsor who is qualified under § 60.7. The sponsor may arrange with another person for services of document preparation and presentation, as well as FSTD inspection, maintenance, repair, and servicing; however, the sponsor remains responsible for ensuring that these functions are conducted in a manner and with a result of continually meeting the requirements of this part.
( b ) Is qualified as described in the Statement of Qualification.
( c ) Remains qualified, through satisfactory inspection, continuing qualification evaluations, appropriate maintenance, and use requirements in accordance with this part and the applicable QPS.
( d ) Functions during day-to-day training, evaluation, or flight experience activities with the software and hardware that was evaluated as satisfactory by the responsible Flight Standards office and, if modified, modified only in accordance with the provisions of this part. However, this section does not apply to routine software or hardware changes that do not fall under the requirements of § 60.23.
( e ) Is operated in accordance with the provisions and limitations of § 60.25.
[Docket No. FAA-2002-12461, 71 FR 63426, Oct. 30, 2006, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2022-1355, Amdt. No. 60-7, 87 FR 75711, Dec. 9, 2022]
#### Frederick L. Thompson. Appellant, *v.*Fifth Avenue Bank of New York, as Executor of Horace J. Brookes, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Argued December 2, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.

*479
      *Warner F. Thompson, James P. Ronaghan, John Kirkland Clark, Edward T. Welch*and *George F. Thompson*for appellant.

*Frederick N. Van Zandt*and *H. A. Cushing*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          30,370
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,958
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,816
<PP&E>                                          45,338
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,252
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 809,379
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,764
<BONDS>                                        215,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           313
<OTHER-SE>                                     402,288
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   809,379
<SALES>                                        300,824
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               300,824
<CGS>                                          116,924
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  233,516
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,918
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   943
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,995
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,065
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,930
<DISCONTINUED>                                   8,673
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  8,413
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,210
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29


</TABLE>
Cite as 2014 Ark. 269



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-13-873
T. RICKS, LLC; RICK ADAMS; AND THE RICK AND LANAN ADAMS LIVING TRUST APPELLANTS
V. RICK KENT; BARBARA KENT; KKC, INC.; MID-STATE INVESTMENTS, LLC; AND MID-STATE SERVICE CO., INC. APPELLEES Opinion DeliveredJune 5, 2014
APPEAL FROM THE WHITE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-2011-668-3] HONORABLE CRAIG HANNAH, JUDGE
APPEAL DISMISSED.

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Associate Justice Appellants T.Ricks, LLC, Rick Adams, and the Rick and Lanan Adams Living Trust (Adams) have attempted to file an interlocutory appeal from an order of the White County Circuit Court denying their motion to remove Robert Hudgins from his court-appointed position of “Special Receiver.” However, because the transcript in this case was not timely filed, we dismiss this appeal. Adams asserts that an interlocutory appeal of the order entered on August 21, 2013, denying his motion to remove the “Special Receiver” was proper pursuant to Rule 2(a)(7) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil. However, Rule 5(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil states that when “an appeal is taken from an interlocutory order under Rule 2(a)(6) or (7), the record must be filed with the clerk of the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days from the entry of such order.” Here the transcriptCite as 2014 Ark. 269

was not filed until October 3, 2013. Accordingly, we cannot consider Adams’s arguments on appeal. U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Milburn , 352 Ark. 144, 100 S.W.3d 674 (2003). Timely filing of a transcript is a jurisdictional question, and the failure to timely file deprives this court of authority to hear the appeal. Palmer v. Evans , 256 Ark. 917, 511 S.W.2d 157 (1974). Appeal dismissed. Special Justice L INDSEY J. F AIRLEY joins in this opinion.
H ANNAH , C.J., not participating. Cearly Law Firm , by: Robert M. Cearly, Jr. ; Hyden, Miron & Foster, PLLC , by: James W. Hyden ; and Brian G. Brooks, Attorney at Law, PLLC , by: Brian G. Brooks , for appellants. Dover, Dixon, Horne, PLLC , by: Thomas S. Stoneand William C. Bird III , for appellees.

2
#### § 67.301 Eligibility.

To be eligible for a third-class airman medical certificate, or to remain eligible for a third-class airman medical certificate, a person must meet the requirements of this subpart.
Opinion issued March 12 , 201 3

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 12

- 00 609

- CV

TONYA LASSELA JACKSON , Appellant

V.

ANTHONY EUGENE WILLIAMS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 387th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 04

- DCV

- 139207



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Tonya Lassela Jackson has failed to timely file a brief. See T EX

.
R. A PP

. P. 38.6( a ) ( governing time to file brief ), 38.8(a) ( governing failure of2 appellant to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to
dismissal, appellant did not respond. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b) (allowing
involuntary dismissal of case).

We dismiss t he appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a brief.
We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Huddle

.
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Annual
Report on Form 10-K of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2002 (the Report), I, James A. Cady, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



March 26,
2003

By:

/s/    JAMES A.
CADYJames A. Cady President and Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of James L. Stoner et al., as Executors of John T. Welsh, Respondents. James L. Stoner et al., Appellants and Respondents; Mary Welsh, Respondent and Appellant. Julia R. Welsh et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 1, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 272 N. Y. 184.)