alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### *The State *against*David Gustin. *(a)*

Purport.

ANOTHER indictment for forgery, against the same defendant, was found at the same time, and the same proceedings, until judgment, were had, as in the preceding case.

The indictment charged, “ that *David Gustin,*late &c., on &c., and after the dissolution of the co-partnership of the said *David Gustin*and *John Ogden,*who had shortly before carried on trade and merchandise, under the name and *863firm of *Ogden & Gustin,*at &c., did falsely make, forge and counterfeit, and did cause and procure to be falsely made, forged and counterfeited, a certain promissory note, for the payment of money, signed by the said *David Gustin,*with the partnership name of *Ogden & Gustin,*and purporting to have been signed by the said *David Gustin,*with the partnership name and firm of *Ogden & Gustin, before*the said partnership was dissolved; the tenor of which said promissory notéis as follows. “$5000. Ninety days after date, we promise to pay *William Shute,*or order, five thousand dollars, at the *State-Bank*at *Elizabeth,*without defalcation or discount, for merchandize rec’d. *E. Town*30th *Deer.*1812. *Ogden & Gustin.”,*with intent to defraud the said *John Ogden,*and to render him liable to the payment of the said sum of money, in the said note mentioned and made payable, contrary to the form of the statute,” &c.

*Halsey*moved to quash.

1. For uncertainty and inconsistency. 2. Because the purport was incorrectly stated; it being stated to be signed by defendant, with the partnership name of *Ogden & Gustin,*whereas it did not purport to be signed by *D. Gustin.*2 *East*982. 3. Because partner, before or after dissolution of partnership, may sign partnership name, for a separate business, and not be liable to the pains of forgery.

*Ohetwood*answered,

and referred to 2 *Hawk.*344. 1 *Mod.*78. 1 *Str.*234, 241, 266. 1 *Salk.*384. 1 *Leach*239, 410. 2 *Str.*486. 2 *Leach*660.

(a)

*State vs. Gustin, ante 744.*

The court :

*Southard*J. dissenting; overruled the motion, and put the defendant to plead, &c.
Statement Pursuant to
Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The
undersigned, Sherry L. Couturier, CFO of American International Industries Inc.,
a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by
Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following
of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31,
2007.






The
undersigned certifies that the above quarterly report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
information contained in the above report fairly presents, in all respects, the
financial condition of American International Industries Inc. and results of its
operations.






Date:
March 18,
2008


Sherry L.
Couturier


CFO


/s/ Sherry L.
Couturier
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No. FAA - 20 13 - 0098 Directorate ID: 20 11 - SW - 039 - AD Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Model 204B, 205A, 205A - 1, 205B, 210, 212 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 152 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : To prevent failure of the inboard strap fitting. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 2,367 to replace a cracked fitting. Labor per Helicopter (40 work- hour s x $85/work- hour for the inspection) $ 3,400

Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 5,767, assuming a fitting needs to be replaced. Total US Fleet Cost $ 876,584 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and P rocedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engine
§ 91.1105 Flight attendants: Initial and transition ground training. Initial and transition ground training for flight attendants must include instruction in at least the following— ( a ) General subjects— ( 1 ) The authority of the pilot in command; and
( 2 ) Passenger handling, including procedures to be followed in handling deranged persons or other persons whose conduct might jeopardize safety.
( b ) For each aircraft type— ( 1 ) A general description of the aircraft emphasizing physical characteristics that may have a bearing on ditching, evacuation, and inflight emergency procedures and on other related duties;
( 2 ) The use of both the public address system and the means of communicating with other flight crewmembers, including emergency means in the case of attempted hijacking or other unusual situations; and
( 3 ) Proper use of electrical galley equipment and the controls for cabin heat and ventilation.
§ 1921.12 Hearing. ( a ) *Order of proceeding; burden of proof.* Except as may be determined otherwise by the hearing examiner, counsel supporting the complaint shall proceed first at the hearing. The Assistant Solicitor of Labor in charge of trial litigation, supporting the complaint, shall have the burden of proof. The burden of proof shall be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence.
( b ) *Evidence* — ( 1 ) *In general.* The testimony of witnesses shall be upon oath or affirmation administered by the hearing examiner and shall be subject to such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. The hearing examiner shall exclude evidence which is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious.
( 2 ) *Objections.* If a party objects to the admission or rejection of any evidence or to the limitation of the scope of any examination or cross-examination or the failure to limit such scope, he shall state briefly the grounds for such objection. Rulings on all objections shall appear in the record. Only objections made before the hearing examiner may be relied upon subsequently in the proceeding.
( 3 ) *Exceptions.* Formal exception to an adverse ruling is not required.
( c ) *Official notice.* Official notice may be taken of any material fact not appearing in evidence in the record, which is among the traditional matters of judicial notice and also concerning which the Department by reason of its functions is presumed to be expert: *Provided,* That the parties shall be given adequate notice, at the hearing or by reference in the hearing examiner's decision of the matters so noticed, and shall be given adequate opportunity to show the contrary.
( d ) *Oral argument before the hearing examiner.* Oral argument before the hearing examiner may be allowed. However, such argument may be limited by the hearing examiner to any extent that he finds necessary for the expeditious disposition of the proceeding.
( e ) *Transcript.* Hearings shall be stenographically reported. Copies of the transcript may be obtained by the parties upon written application filed with the reporter, and upon the payment of fees at the rate provided in the agreement between the Assistant Secretary and the reporter.
[No. 27606-2-II.

Division Two.

November 22, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Charles Edward Habbitt, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 01-1-02101-1, D. Gary Steiner, J., entered July 13, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall, A.C.J., and Houghton, J.
§ 15.110 What must a claimant do if the administrative claim is approved? ( a ) Payment of a claim approved under this subpart is contingent upon claimant's execution of the appropriate forms, such as the SF-194, SF-196, or SF-197, in accordance with instructions by the Department of Justice and/or the Judgment Fund. When a claimant is represented by an attorney, the voucher for payment shall designate the claimant as payee (as the beneficial interest holder), and the check shall be delivered to the attorney whose address appears on the voucher.
( b ) Acceptance by the claimant, or his or her agent or legal representative, of an award, compromise, or settlement under 28 U.S.C. 2672 or 28 U.S.C. 2677 is final and conclusive on the claimant, his or her agent or legal representative, and any other person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the claim has been presented and constitutes a complete release of any claim against the United States and against any officer or employee of the Government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim by reason of the same subject matter.
#### § 1915.1045 Acrylonitrile.

Note:

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1045 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1045).

[[61 FR 31431](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31431), June 20, 1996]
§ 1450.4 Conformance to law and regulations. The requirements of applicable law (31 U.S.C 3701-3719 and 5 U.S.C. 5514 as amended by Pub. L. 97-365, 96 Stat. 1749) have been implemented in Governmentwide standards: ( a ) The Regulations of the Office of Personnel Management (5 CFR part 550),
( b ) The Federal Claims Collection Standards issued jointly by the General Accounting Office and the Department of Justice (4 CFR parts 101-105), and
( c ) The procedures prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget in Circular A-129 of May 9, 1985.
Not every item in the above described standards has been incorporated or referenced in this regulation. To the extent, however, that circumstances arise which are not covered by the terms stated in this regulation, FMCS will proceed in any actions taken in accordance with applicable requirements found in the sources referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section.
#### § 1918.4 OMB control numbers under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The following list identifies the 29 CFR citations for sections or paragraphs in this part that contain a collection of information requirement approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The list also provides the control number assigned by OMB to each approved requirement; control number 1218-0196 expires on May 31, 2002 and control number 1218-0003 expires on July 31, 2001. The list follows:

| 29 CFR citation | OMB control No. |
| --- | --- |
| 1918.22(g) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.24(i)(1) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.61(b)(2) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.61(c) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.61(f)(1) | 1218-0003 |
| 1918.61(f)(2) | 1218-0003 |
| 1918.61(g) | 1218-0003 |
| 1918.61(h) | 1218-0003 |
| 1918.61(i) | 1218-0003 |
| 1918.62(b)(1) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.62(b)(5) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.62(c)(1) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.62(d)(1) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.62(g)(3) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.62(g)(4) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.62(h)(1) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.62(h)(3)(ii) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.62(h)(4) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.64(k)(1) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.64(k)(2) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.65(b)(1) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.66(a)(2) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.66(a)(8) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.66(a)(9) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.66(a)(11) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.66(a)(15) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.66(d)(2) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.66(d)(4) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.66(f)(1)(v) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.85(a) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.85(b)(4)(ii) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.85(k)(13) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.86(b) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.86(e) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.86(g) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.86(h) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.93(b) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.93(d)(4) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.94(c) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.96(e)(2) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.97(d)(7) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.100(a) | 1218-0196 |
| 1918.100(e)(3) | 1218-0196 |

[64 FR 61506, Nov. 12, 1999]
§ 65.20 Applications, certificates, logbooks, reports, and records: Falsification, reproduction, or alteration. ( a ) No person may make or cause to be made— ( 1 ) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement on any application for a certificate or rating under this part;
( 2 ) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook, record, or report that is required to be kept, made, or used, to show compliance with any requirement for any certificate or rating under this part;
( 3 ) Any reproduction, for fraudulent purpose, of any certificate or rating under this part; or
( 4 ) Any alteration of any certificate or rating under this part.
( b ) The commission by any person of an act prohibited under paragraph (a) of this section is a basis for suspending or revoking any airman or ground instructor certificate or rating held by that person.
[Doc. No. 4086, 30 FR 2196, Feb. 18, 1965]
**Exhibit
      32.1**








**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Tower Financial Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald
      F. Schenkel, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of
      the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 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.








/s/
                Donald F. SchenkelDonald
                F. SchenkelChairman
                of the Board, Presidentand
                Chief Executive OfficerMay
                12, 2006
Shareholder Agreement



 Exhibit 10.11 
 Shareholder Agreement 
  

			
	Owner Representatives: ****, ****	  	(referred hereinafter as Party A)
		
	Actual Owner: Dynacq (Huai Bei) Healthcare, Inc.	  	(referred hereinafter as Party B)

 In the view of: 
  

	 	1.	According to the Department of Commerce, the owner of Shanghai Feng Han Enterprise Development Ltd (“Feng Han”) is Owner Representatives (Party A) as
entrusted shareholder of Party B. 

  

	 	2.	Per Party B’s request, Feng Han will purchase 100% of the ownership of Wen Zhou Li Ji Healthcare Investment and Management Ltd (“Li Ji”). Party B is the
actual purchaser of Li Ji, so Party B should be entitled of all the shareholder’s rights and the benefits of Li Ji. 

  

	 	3.	Party B wants to conduct its healthcare management and related business in China, so it will use Feng Han as its operation entity. 

 Party A, as the entrusted shareholder of Feng Han for Party B, (actual owner is Party B) and Party B have signed this agreement to clarify:

 Article 1. Stock ownership 
  

	 	1.	Party A is the original owner of Feng Han and has transferred ownership to Party B. Transfer ownership has not been registered with the Department of Commerce, however
this shall not restrict Party B from the actual ownership of Feng Han. 

  

	 	2.	Before registered with Department of Commerce, Party A is the entrusted stockholder for Party B to hold Feng Han’s stock, and has neither stock rights in Feng Han,
nor obligation for liability for Feng Han. 

  

	 	3.	Party A’s execution of its duties in Feng Han is under the direction of Party B. 

 Article 2. Promise of transfer ownership registration 
  

	 	1.	Party B reserves the right to enforce Party A to register stock ownership transfer to Party B with the Department of Commerce only when the Department of Commerce
accepts the case. 

  

	 	2.	Party A is only responsible when it refuses to register ownership transfer with the Department of Commerce. Party A is not responsible for failure to register under
circumstances that are beyond its control 

 Article 3. Other related issue for the ownership transfer 

 

	 	1.	Party A is responsible for all the debt and credit before transferring ownership of Feng Han. Party B, who will be the sole owner of Feng Han, is responsible for the
debt and credit after ownership transfer. 

  

	*	Information has been omitted pursuant to a Request for Confidential Treatment and filed separately with the SEC 








 Article 4. Effectiveness 
  

	 	1.	The agreement will be effective when both parties signed or sealed. 

  

	 	2.	There are four copies of the agreement in total, two copies of which for each party. Each agreement shall deem equally authentic. 

  

					
	  	 		 	  
	Party A: ******	 		 	******

  

	
	  
	Party B: Dynacq (Huai Bei) Healthcare, Inc

 March 12, 2009 
  

	*	Information has been omitted pursuant to a Request for Confidential Treatment and filed separately with the SEC
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2011-0720

Directorate Identifier: 2010NM252AD

AMM 32-34-00 --- 7/5/10

MPD 1-32 --- 7/5/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### Frank T. Robinson, App’lt, *v.*James Boyce, Resp’t.

Appeal from judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint entered on report of referee.

*M. S. Carclozo,*lof app’lt; *W. G. Wilson,*for resp’t.

Van Brunt, P. J.

We are of the opinion that the judgment in this case should be affirmed, for the reasons stated *205in the decision in the case of *Masterson*v. *Boyce,*handed down herewith. *Ante,*p. 198.

Macomber and Bartlett, JJ., concur.
#### GUARANTEED ACCEPTANCE CORP v THORNTON CHEVROLET CO

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No 1623.

Decided April 19, 1929

Herberich & Weich, Akron, for Guaranteed Acc. Corp.

Whittemore & Motz, Akron, for Chevrolet Co.

WASHBURN, J.

We think that the law requires a bill of sale where one. automobile dealer sells a new automobile to another dealer, and that when the Thornton Co. sold to the Myers Co., it was the duty of the Thornton Co. to execute and deliver a bill of sale, for the sale was completed and the car was delivered.

The case turns upon whether the Thornton Co. is estopped from claiming that, because a bill of sale' was not given by it, no title passed when it sold and delivered the car to the Ralph Mvers Chevrolet Co.

There can be no question but that the Thornton Chevrolet Co. intended to make a sale and pass title, and it completed the transaction in the way customary among dealers. The Thornton Chevrolet Co. made it possible for the Ralph Myers Chevrolet Co. to obtain money from the Guaranteed Acceptance Corp. and mortgage said car as security therefor, and it seems to us that on the plainest principles of equity and fair dealing, it ought to be and is estopped from setting up its own violation of the law to defeat the rights of the Guaranteed Acceptance Corp., an innocent purchaser of the mortgage.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed; and there being no dispute about the material facts in the case, final judgment is entered in favor of the Guaranteed Acceptance Corp.

Funk, PJ, and Pardee, J, concur.
#### ALTHOURISTE v CENTURY MEDICAL HEALTH PLAN, INC., etc.

Case No. 90-60215 CA 23

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

March 15, 1991

OPINION OF THE COURT

W. THOMAS SPENCER, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE ATTORNEY FEES*

The Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the defendant Health Maintenance Organization failed to provide certain medical benefits and asks for attorney fees under the provisions of F.S. 641.28 which provides:

> “641.28 Civil Remedy. — In any civil action brought to enforce the terms and conditions of a health maintenance organization contract, the prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.”

*144The defendant moves to strike the claim for attorney fees because the HMO contract which is appended to and made a part of the plaintiffs complaint contains a contractual waiver of attorney fees. Paragraph B Section XIV of the contract states:

> “B. It is the expressed intention of the Subscriber and Century that no claim or recovery shall be allowed for attorney’s fees in any claim in a court of law to enforce the provisions of this contract by either the Subscriber or Century or any interested party.”

By assessing attorney fees against the losing party, F.S. 641.28 discourages groundless litigation and encourages each party to verify the validity of their position. The HMO contract defeats this legislative purpose.

“On grounds of public policy, clauses in a contract which violate a statutory provision are nugatory and will not be given effect.” *Dept. of M. Veh. Etc. v Mercedes-Benz, Etc.,*408 So.2d 627, 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). “. . . an agreement which violates a statute or is contrary to public policy is illegal, void, and unenforceable as between the parties.” *Bond v Koscot Interplanetary, Inc.,*246 So.2d 631, 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Also see *Park v Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co.,*547 So.2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

Paragraph B of Section XIV of the HMO contract which seeks to waive attorney fees is contrary to the provisions of F.S. 641.28 and therefore void and unenforceable.

Such invalidity does not affect the balance of the contract. The offending clause is clearly severable from the balance of the contract. “. . . a bilateral contract is severable where the illegal portion of the contract does not go to its essence, and where, with the illegal portion eliminated, there still remains of the contract valid promises on one side which are wholly supported by valid legal promises on the other.” *Local No. 234, Etc. v Henley & Beckwith, Inc.,*66 So. 818, 821 (Fla. 1953).

The defendant’s Motion to Strike Attorney Fees is therefore denied.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Miami, Dade County, Florida, this 15th day of March, 1991.
#### LIPSHITZ v WARADY

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9606.

Decided Feb 4, 1929

Frank A Silverman, Cleveland, for Lipshitz

Frank Warady, Youngstown, and Spring & Sayre, Cleveland, for Warady.

PER CURIAM

It will be seen that on the face of the assignment the entire fund of $800.00 in the hands of the insurance company was assigned to attorney Warady. After hearing evidence on the interpleader filed by the insurance company, the court found that Warady was only entitled to one-half of the fund. In other words, that it was the intention of the assignor to assign only one-half of the fund, In view of that finding it is very clear that the balance of the fund belongs to the judgment debtor. Insofar as this balance of $400.00 of the fund is concerned, and which admittedly belongs to the judgment debtor, the exemption laws of the state apply. We therefore conclude that the trial court committed error in denying the application for exemption.

The judgment of the Municipal Court is ordered reversed and judgment entered granting said application for exemption. A Journal Entry will be drawn accordingly.

Sullivan, PJ, Vickery and Levine, JJ, concur.
#### § 102.96 Issuance of complaint promptly.

Whenever injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(l) of the Act is sought in district court, a complaint against the party or parties sought to be enjoined, covering the same subject matter as the application for injunctive relief, will be issued promptly, normally within 5 days of the date when injunctive relief is first sought, except in cases in which a Notice of Hearing under Section 10(k) of the Act has issued.