alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The Middlesex County Bank, Pl’ff, *v.*Hirsch Brothers’ Veneer Manufacturing Company, Def’t.

*(City Court, New York,*

*General Term,*

*Filed March 27, 1889.)*

Corporation—Action on promissory note—Indorser— Sufficiency of proof.

Where a corporation is sued as indorser of a promissory note, indorsed in their name by “L. Hirsch, Manager,” and there was no proof that the note concerned any business of the corporation, that the corporation ever received any value for it, or benefit from it, or that the manager had power to bind it in the form stated: *Held,*that the proof was not sufficient, and a new trial was granted.

Appeal from judgment entered on verdict in favor of plaintiff.

*Horwitz & Hershfteld,*for app’lt; *Morris & Savage,*for resp’t.

Per Curiam.

The defendant, a corporation, is sought to be charged as indorser of two promissory notes held by the plaintiff.

The indorsements were made in the name of the defendant by “L. Hirsch, Manager.” There is no proof in the case that the notes concerned any business of the corpora*298tian, that it ever received any value for, or benefit from the indorsement, or that Mr. Hirsch, the manager, had power to bind it in the form stated. On the contrary, it would rather seem that the corporation received no benefit from the transaction, and that it did not concern the corporation business, a circumstance negativing the existence of authority in Hirsch, even as manager, to bind the corporation as indorser on negotiable paper in which it had no interest or concern.

There must be a new trial of the action, at which the plaintiff may perhaps supply the required proof. See Morawitz on Corporations, § 433; *Bank of Genesee*v. *Patchin B’k,*13 N. Y., 309; *Life and Fire Ins. Co.*v. *Mechanics’ Fire Ins. Co., 7*Wend., 31; *Alexander*v. *Cauldwell,*83 N. Y., 480.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
#### H. HERFURTH, JR., INC. v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 43338.

Decided June 7, 1937]

*Messrs.*Eseh, *Kerr, Taylor & Shipe*for the plaintiff. *Mr. Henry P. Thomas*was on the brief,

*Mr. J. Robert*Anderson, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General James W. Morris,*for the defendant.

MEMORANDUM ON DEMURRER

The plaintiff seeks to recover in this case for work performed for the use of the United States under the direction of its agents and accepted by them.

The petition recites in substance that one Stetson submitted a proposal to perform certain work for the defendant which proposal was accepted but by reason of the failure of Stetson to file a bond required by the defendant, no contract was ever entered into with him. In the meantime, however, Stetson awarded part of the work to the plaintiff at a fixed price. The plaintiff proceeded with the work under the direction of defendant’s agents and so far as it went, to their satisfaction, until it was informed that no contract between defendant and Stetson had been completed and that the contract would be relet. Thereupon, plaintiff was requested by defendant’s agent to furnish a statement of the cost of the work done, which amounted to $921.25 and which the defendant’s representative agreed to be reasonable.

It is further alleged that defendant proceeded to relet the contract and in so doing made use of the work performed *554by plaintiff and had the project completed at a lower price by reason thereof, but now refuses to pay the plaintiff anything for the work which it performed.

The defendant demurs to the petition on the ground that it fails to show any contract, express or implied, with plaintiff on the part of the defendant.

As the petition is now drawn, the demurrer will have to be sustained. If the plaintiff recovers at all, it must recover on a *quantum*meruit, or *quantum*valebat, but there is no allegation in the petition that the work done was reasonably worth the amount claimed or any other sum and no direct allegation that the work of plaintiff was accepted and made use of by the defendant. An order will be entered sustaining the demurrer with leave to the plaintiff to amend its petition.1

1

 Note: On June 15, 1937, plaintiff filed an amended petition.
§ 1912.2 Types of standards advisory committees. The Assistant Secretary establishes two types of advisory committees under section 7(b) of the Act to assist him in his standards-setting duties. These are: ( a ) Continuing committees which have been, or may be established from time to time, to assist in the development of standards in areas where there is frequent rulemaking and the use of ad hoc committees is impractical; and
( b ) Ad hoc committees which are established to render advice in particular rulemaking proceedings.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7140
ROLAND LEE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Onslow County, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-358-5-BO-3) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 18, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roland Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the districtcourt's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on thereasoning of the district court. Williams v. Onslow County Sheriff's Dep't , No. CA-97-358-5-BO-3 (E.D.N.C. July 28, 1997). 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
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Marcus Tyrone Grant v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-21-00340-CR

Trial court case number: 20-12-17503

Trial court: 506th District Court of Waller County

Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing is denied.

All other pending motions, including Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Amended

Argument and his Motion for Injunctive Relief, are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: Richard Hightower

Acting for the Court

Date: November 4, 2021

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Farris.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the periodic report of Asiamart, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Alex Yue, Chief Executive Officer
      (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
      hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
      States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)   The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
        applicable, 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 at the dates
        and for the periods indicated.
  Dated: 
                  August 20, 2007/s/
                  Alex YueAlex
                YueChief
                  Executive Officer(Principal
                  Executive
                  Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: REGINAL C. GILBERT

,

Appellant. **§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§** No. 08

- 22

- 00 12 5

- C R

Appeal from the

142 nd District Court

of Midland C ounty, Texas

(TC# C V58579 )

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed on July 8 , 2022 . Pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 31.1, the Court

sets the following brief schedule: Appellant’s brief shall be due in this Court on or before August

7 , 2022 and the State ’s brief shall be due no later than thirty days after the Appellant’s brief is filed

with this Court. A submission date will be determined at a later date and the parties will be

pr ovided with advanced notice of the setting. See Tex.R.App.P. 39.8.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8 th day of July , 20 22

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Alley , JJ.
§ 1625.8 Bona fide seniority systems. Section 4(f)(2) of the Act provides that * * * It shall not be unlawful for an employer, employment agency, or labor organization * * * to observe the terms of a bona fide seniority system * * * which is not a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this Act except that no such seniority system * * * shall require or permit the involuntary retirement of any individual specified by section 12(a) of this Act because of the age of such individual. * * *
( a ) Though a seniority system may be qualified by such factors as merit, capacity, or ability, any bona fide seniority system must be based on length of service as the primary criterion for the equitable allocation of available employment opportunities and prerogatives among younger and older workers.
( b ) Adoption of a purported seniority system which gives those with longer service lesser rights, and results in discharge or less favored treatment to those within the protection of the Act, may, depending upon the circumstances, be a “subterfuge to evade the purposes” of the Act.
( c ) Unless the essential terms and conditions of an alleged seniority system have been communicated to the affected employees and can be shown to be applied uniformly to all of those affected, regardless of age, it will not be considered a bona fide seniority system within the meaning of the Act.
( d ) It should be noted that seniority systems which segregate, classify, or otherwise discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, are prohibited under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where that Act otherwise applies. The “bona fides” of such a system will be closely scrutinized to ensure that such a system is, in fact, bona fide under the ADEA.
[53 FR 15673, May 3, 1988]
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
SOPHANN CHAN , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 20

- 0435 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012

- 107625

- 001 The Honorable Dewain D. Fox , Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Sophann Chan , Florence Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 4-1-2021STATE v. CHAN Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Sophann Chan seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's first petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of l aw, this court will not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petiti on for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court's order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.
Exhibit 32 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
           pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Citizens First
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") I, Mary D. Cohron, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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.

By:  /s/Mary D. Cohron
        Mary D. Cohron
        Chief Executive Officer


Date: September 5, 2006

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Citizens First
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") I, Steve Marcum, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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.


By:  /s/ Steve Marcum
         Steve Marcum
         Chief Financial Officer


Date: September 5, 2006
                                        27
EXHIBIT 23.1



Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-88375) pertaining to the ITXC Corp. Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-93613) pertaining to the ITXC Corp. 1998 Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated February 11,
2003 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of ITXC Corp. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.





|                        
|------------------------
|/S/    ERNST & YOUNG
LLP



MetroPark, New Jersey

March 27, 2003
#### §§ 415.64-415.70 [Reserved]
DENIED and Opinion Filed June 9, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00275-CV

IN RE NORMAN JOSEPH LANDRY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-00932-2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Osborne, Partida-Kipness, and Smith

Opinion by Justice Smith

Norman Joseph Landry petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial 

court to grant him a personal recognizance bond pending appeal. We deny relief.

Relator’s petition does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in 

that it is not properly certified and is not supported by a record of certified or sworn 

documents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j), 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); In re Butler, 270 

S.W.3d 757, 758–59 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding); see also TEX.CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001 (describing process to authenticate documents 

as sworn copies). Thus, relator has not carried his burden to show he is entitled to 

mandamus relief. See Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 759.
–2–

Moreover, the relief that appellant seeks, to be released under a personal bond 

on his own recognizance, involves the exercise of judicial discretion and is thus not 

a proper subject for mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. 

Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (no 

mandamus relief absent showing relator has no adequate remedy at law and what 

relator seeks to compel is ministerial act not involving discretionary or judicial 

decision); Ex parte Gomez, 624 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (trial court 

exercises discretion in setting bond and determination reviewed for abuse of 

discretion).

We deny relator’s petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

220275f.p05

/Craig Smith/

CRAIG SMITH

JUSTICE
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION 

 

I, Martha J. Kelley, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Heartland Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2004; 

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such 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) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]; 

 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

 

Date: November 12, 2004
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 865 

To authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out a project for the 

mitigation of shore damages attributable to the project for navigation, 

Saco River, Maine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2007 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. SNOWE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out a 

project for the mitigation of shore damages attributable 

to the project for navigation, Saco River, Maine. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Camp Ellis Beach Res5 toration Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SHORE DAMAGE MITIGATION PROJECT, SACO 

7 RIVER, MAINE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army is au9 thorized to carry out, under section 111 of the River and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 865 IS

1 Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i), a project for the 

2 mitigation of shore damages attributable to the project for 

3 navigation, Saco River, Maine. 

4 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

5 authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out 

6 this section. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 0934 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM260AD ALS PART 1, R5 --- 7/29/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket **MA Y 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
EXHIBIT
32.1






Statement Pursuant to
Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The
undersigned, Daniel Dror, CEO and Chairman 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 for the period ended June
30, 2008.






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






Date:  August
14, 2008


Daniel
Dror


Chairman


/s/ Daniel
Dror
#### § 1902.45 [Reserved]