alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### David C. Murray, Appellant, *vs.*Marcus S. Johnson, Respondent.

This was an Appeal from, an order of the District Court for the Second Judicial District and County of Ramsey.

The object of the action was to recover the amount of a promissory note, made by the Defendant below, for Two Hundred Dollars with interest.

The summons and complaint were served upon the Defendant by the Sheriff of Ramsey County, by leaving certified copies at the usual last place of abode of the Defendant, on the 28th day of October, 1854.

Within ten days from the date of such service the Defendant appeared by attorneys, who served notice of Retainer and Appearance, and a demand of a copy of the Complaint, upon the Plaintiff’s Attorneys.

On the 18th of November following, the complaint and summons were filed in the Clerk’s office, together with the affidavit of one of the Plaintiff’s Attorneys, setting forth the time of the service of the summons and complaint, and stating that no answer or demurrer had been received from the Defendant within the twenty days prescribed by law.

Whereupon, judgment was rendered and entered in favor of the Plaintiff, for the full amount claimed.

On the 23d day of November following, the Defendant’s Attorneys moved to vacate and set aside this j udgment,

Because, no affidavit had been filed showing that twenty days had expired since the service of the summons ; —

*225And because, no proof was made or furnished to the Court before the entry of said judgment, of the demand mentioned in the complaint;—

Because no one was examined on behalf of the Plaintiff, before the entry of judgment, “ respecting any payment made to “ the Plaintiff, on account of said demand,” mentioned in said complaint ;—

Because no security to “ abide the order of the Court touching the restitution of any property collected or received un- “ der the judgment,” was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff, before the entry of such judgment; —

And because, no notice of an application for judgment was served upon the Defendant’s Attorneys, as required by statute, before the entry of such judgment.

Upon argument of this motion, the District Court ordered that the said judgment be vacated and set aside, with costs. Prom which order, the Plaintiff appealed to this Court.

Newell *&*Tompkins; Counsel for Appellant,

Ames & Yan Etten, Counsel for Respondent.

There being no appearance in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Appellant the order of the District Court was affirmed with costs.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 23 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
CLARENCE WILLIAM HAIRSTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. SUSIE MCGUIRE, RN: Nurse 111, Delta Correctional Center,

Defendant - Appellee. No. 02-1445 D.C. No. 02-Z-1331 (D. Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , McKAY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument.-2-

This is a pro se state prisoner 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights appea l. Mr. Hairston seeks monetary damages on his claim that D efendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violati on of the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed Mr. Hairston’s complai nt as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Mr. Hairsto n appeals to this court. Mr. Hairston suffered pain after his jaw surgery. A dentist examined him and prescribed Motrin. Defendant Nurse subsequently told Mr. Hairston that he could not take Motrin because he had been previousl y diagnosed with Hepatitis C. She instead recommended Tylenol. Mr. Hairston comp lained that he would have to pay for Tylenol and that Tylenol was not strong enough for the pain. He also claimed that he was embarrassed by the public announcement that he has Hepatitis C. We agree with the district court that Mr. Hairston’ s allegations do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment claim. Therefo re, after a thorough review of Appellant’s brief and the record, and for substanti ally the same reasons set forth in the district court’s well-reasoned September 16, 2002, Order, we hold that no relief is available to Mr. Hairston. The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Appel lant’s motion to proceed without prepayment of the appellate filing fee is GRANTED. We remind-3-

Appellant that he must make partial payments on cou rt fees and costs until such have been paid in full.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 43 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.43
                                        Agreed to August 3, 2007        

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Friday, 
August 3, 2007, through Friday, August 31, 2007, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12 noon on Tuesday, 
September 4, 2007, or such other time on that day as may be specified 
by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or 
adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of 
this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the 
House adjourns on any legislative day from Friday, August 3, 2007, 
through Wednesday, August 8, 2007, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 
adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, September 4, 2007, or until the time 
of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
        Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of 
    the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 
    consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the 
    Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the 
    Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble at such place and 
    time as they may designate if, in their opinion, the public 
    interest shall warrant it.
  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.

  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
#### In the Matter of Frederick J. Mix, an Attorney, Appellant. Daniel J. O’Mara, District Attorney, Respondent.

Argued March 25, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

*184
      *Paul Folger, Charles S. Wilcox*and *William Johns*for appellant.

The Appellate Division erred in finding that the relationship of attorney and client existed between the complainant and appellant. *(Shultz*v. *Hoagland,*85 N. Y. 464; *Lopez*v. *Campbell,*163 N. Y. 340; *People*v. *Galbo,*218 N. Y. 283.) The Appellate Division erred,in finding that the money collected from the maker of the note belonged to Stockwell, and that appellant, in failing *185to turn it over to Stockwell, rendered himself .amenable to discipline. *(Matter of Bailey*v. *Rutherford,*242 N. Y. 220.) The appellant has been found guilty and disciplined in the Thomas matter for an offense not charged or proved. *(Matter of Eldridge,*82 N. Y. 161; *Matter of Metcalfe,*247 App. Div. 178.)

*Daniel J. O’Mara, District Attorney {Stephen K. Pollard*of counsel), respondent.

The Appellate Division was not in error in finding that the relationship of attorney and client existed between Stockwell and the appellant. *(Matter of Young,*188 App. Div. 538.) The court did not err in finding appellant guilty of professional misconduct in the Thomas matter. *(Matter of Horovitz,*228 App. Div. 484; *Matter of Kohler,*240 App. Div. 501.)

*Per Curiam.*

After an examination of the evidence we find that the charge regarding the Stockwell loan is not sustained by the evidence. It appears that Stockwell treated Mix as a debtor from whom money was due on his note. Mix was not acting as attorney, and the relationship was that of debtor and creditor: He, there- ■ fore, should not be charged with unprofessional conduct as an attorney. The findings of the Appellate Division in this respect should be reversed and the charge dismissed.

As to the other charge, however, the retention of money paid by Joseph Thomas to satisfy a judgment, we cannot say that there is no evidence to sustain the findings of the Appellate Division. We remit the matter to the Appellate Division to determine whether disciplinary action should follow from that charge.

The order should be reversed and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division in accordance with this opinion.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Lotjghran and Finch, JJ., concur; Rippey, J., taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.
§ 2520.104-43 Exemption from annual reporting requirement for certain group insurance arrangements. ( a ) *General.* Under the authority of section 104(a)(3) of the Act, the administrator of an employee welfare benefit plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section is not required to file an annual report with the Secretary of Labor as required by section 104(a)(1) of the Act.
( b ) *Application.* ( 1 ) This exemption applies only to a welfare plan for a plan year in which ( i ) such plan meets the requirements of § 2520.104-21, except the requirement that the plan cover fewer than 100 participants at the beginning of the plan year, and
( ii ) An annual report containing the items set forth in § 2520.103-2 has been filed with the Secretary of Labor in accordance with § 2520.104a-6 by the trust or other entity which is the holder of the group insurance contracts by which plan benefits are provided.
( 2 ) For purposes of this section, the terms “group insurance arrangement” or “trust or other entity” shall be used in place of the terms “plan” and “plan administrator,” as applicable, in §§ 2520.103-3, 2520.103-4, 2520.103-6, 2520.103-8, 2520.103-9 and 2520.103-10.
( c ) *Limitation.* This provision does not exempt the administrator of an employee benefit plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (b) from furnishing a copy of a summary annual report to participants and beneficiaries of the plan, as required by section 104(b)(3) of the Act.
[43 FR 10150, Mar. 10, 1978, as amended at 65 FR 21084, Apr. 19, 2000; 67 FR 777, Jan. 7, 2002]
----

----

I Informācija

Komisija

----

Eiro maiņas kurss (1)

2004. gada 29. jūlijs

(2004/C 194/01)

1 eiro= 

----

(1)

Datu avots: atsauces maiņas kursu publicējusi ECB.

----

----

Kopsavilkums par Kopienas lēmumiem attiecībā uz zāļu tirdzniecības atļaujām no 2004. gada 15. jūnija līdz 2004. gada 15. jūlijam

(Publicēts atbilstīgi 12. vai 34. pantam Padomes Regulā (EEK) Nr. 2309/93 (1))

(2004/C 194/02)

—   Tirdzniecības atļaujas izsniegšana (12. pants Padomes Regulā (EEK) Nr. 2309/93): Pieņemts

—   Tirdzniecības atļaujas izmaiņas (12. pants Padomes Regulā (EEK) Nr. 2309/93): Pieņemts

—   Tirdzniecības atļaujas anulēšana (12. pants Padomes Regulā (EEK) Nr. 2309/93)

----

(1)OV L 214, 24.8.1993., 1. lpp.

----

----

Kopsavilkums par Kopienas lēmumiem attiecībā uz zāļu tirdzniecības atļaujām no 2004. gada 15. maija līdz 2004. gada 15. jūnijam

(Publicēts atbilstīgi 12. vai 34. pantam Padomes Regulā (EEK) Nr. 2309/93 (1))

(2004/C 194/03)

—   Tirdzniecības atļaujas izsniegšana (12. pants Padomes Regulā (EEK) Nr. 2309/93): Pieņemts

----

(1)OV L 214, 24.8.1993., 1. lpp.

----

----

EX POST PUBLIKĀCIJA PAR EUROSTAT SUBSĪDIJĀM 2003. GADĀ

Informācija sabiedrībai

(2004/C 194/04)

Saskaņā ar Finanšu regulas 110. panta 2. punktu un tās piemērošanas noteikumu 169. pantu ar šo sabiedrība tiek informēta par Eurostat finansētajiem pasākumiem 2003. gadā.

Elektroniskais fails, kurā ietverti attiecīgie pasākumi, saraksta formā atrodams serverī EUROPA (http://europa.eu.int). Šo sarakstu var apskatīt, izmantojot saites “Institūcijas”, “Komisija”, “Statistika”, “Eurostat aktivitātes” un “Konkursu piedāvājumi un subsīdijas” un pēc tam atverot failu “Eurostat – 2003. gadā piešķirto subsīdiju saraksts”.

Sarakstā norādīts lietas numurs, atbildīgā vienība, finansējuma saņēmēju nosaukums un valsts, pasākuma nosaukums, piešķirtā summa un pasākuma līdzfinansējuma apmērs.

Šāda publikācija ir bijusi par visām aktivitātēm.

----

----

Iepriekšējs paziņojums par koncentrāciju

(Lieta Nr. COMP/M.3513 – Caterpillar/Xpart)

Lieta, kas pretendē uz vienkāršotu procedūru

(2004/C 194/05)

(Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ)

----

(1)OV L 24, 29.1.2004., 1. lpp.

(2)OV C 217, 29.7.2000., 32. lpp. Padomes Regula (EEK) Nr. 4064/89 ir aizstāta ar Padomes Regulu (EK) Nr. 139/2004.

----
#### SCHNEIDER et v. WOLF et

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21445.

Decided May 22, 1929

Syllabus by

KINKADE, J.

DECEDENTS’ ESTATES

(220 E2) An owner of real property, by his last will and testament, conveyed to one of his sons a life estate in the income arising from an undivided one-fourth of his property, with the remainder over in fee simple to such of the children begotten by the son, if any, as thereafter came into being, .and survived the life tenant, and if none were born and so survived their father, then the remainder of that undivided one-fourth of the property to pass in fee simule on the death of the life tenant, to three other sons of the testator, to each of whom the will gave an undivided one-fourth, in fee simple, of the whole estate, effective on the ter-' mination of a life estate given by the will to their mother. None of the class of unborn devisees in remainder were in being at the death of the testator. The mother and the four sons survived the testator. An action was duly commenced pursuant to 11925 to 11935 GC, inclusive, to disentail the property, all parties in being who were interested in the property being made parties to the action. None of the class of devisees named, in the will as unborn were then in being. HELD* that it was unnecessary to name these unborn devisees as parties to the action brought to disentail the property.

REAL ESTATE

(510 P) The court found it impossible to sell the entailed one-fourth of the estate separately without serious loss to all interested, and found that the property of the estate could be sold to the advantage of all interests pursuant to an action in partition, the sale covering the entire estate. HELD, that a sale made in an action in partition, which in ,all respects complies with all of the provisions of 11925 to 11935 GC, inclusive, disentails the property, notwithstanding the fact that the unborn heirs were not named as parties to that action.

Jones, Day and Allen, JJ, concur.
§ 2550.403a-1 Establishment of trust. ( a ) *In general.* Except as otherwise provided in § 403b-1, all assets of an employee benefit plan shall be held in trust by one or more trustees pursuant to a written trust instrument.
( b ) *Specific applications.* ( 1 ) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section will not fail to be satisfied merely because securities of a plan are held in the name of a nominee or in street name, provided such securities are held on behalf of the plan by: ( i ) A bank or trust company that is subject to supervision by the United States or a State, or a nominee of such bank or trust company;
( ii ) A broker or dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or a nominee of such broker or dealer; or
( iii ) A “clearing agency,” as defined in section 3(a)(23) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or its nominee.
( 2 ) Where a corporation described in section 501(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code holds property on behalf of a plan, the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are satisfied with respect to such property if all the stock of such corporation is held in trust on behalf of the plan by one or more trustees.
( 3 ) If the assets of an entity in which a plan invests include plan assets by reason of the plan's investment in the entity, the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are satisfied with respect to such investment if the indicia of ownership of the plan's interest in the entity are held in trust on behalf of the plan by one or more trustees.
( c ) *Requirements concerning trustees.* The trustee or trustees referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) shall be either named in the trust instrument or in the plan instrument described in section 402(a) of the Act, or appointed by a person who is a named fiduciary (within the meaning of section 402(a)(2) of the Act). Upon acceptance of being named or appointed, the trustee or trustees shall have exclusive authority and discretion to manage and control the assets of the plan, except to the extent that: ( 1 ) The plan instrument or the trust instrument expressly provides that the trustee or trustees are subject to the direction of a named fiduciary who is not a trustee, in which case the trustees shall be subject to the proper directions of such fiduciary which are made in accordance with the terms of the plan and which are not contrary to the provisions of title I of the Act of chapter XXV of this title, or
( 2 ) Authority to manage, acquire or dispose of assets of the plan is delegated to one or more investment managers (within the meaning of section 3(38) of the Act) pursuant to section 402(c)(3) of the Act.
[47 FR 21247, May 18, 1982]
----

Action brought on 30 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

(Case C-335/04)

(2004/C 239/15)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Denis Martin, of its legal service and Horstpeter Kreppel, Judge of the Arbeitsgericht (Labour Court) seconded to the Commission's legal service as part of an exchange programme with national civil servants, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period for transposition of Directive 2000/43/EC expired on 19 July 2003.

----

(1)OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.

----
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.2

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 Crdentia Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, James J. TerBeest, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to 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.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date:  November 15, 2004                    By: /s/  James J. TerBeest
                                              ----------------------------------
                                                     James J. TerBeest
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10631

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ANTUNES-AGUIRRE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CR-351-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Antunes-Aguirre has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Antunes-Aguirre has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 14, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 21 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 21

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 18, 2007

  Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Harkin) 
  introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and 
spending of money, including through setting limits, for campaigns for 
nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office.
    ``Section 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and 
spending of money, including through setting limits, for--
            ``(1) State or local ballot initiatives, referenda, 
        plebiscites, or other similar ballot measures; and
            ``(2) campaigns for nomination for election to, or for 
        election to, State or local office.
    ``Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce 
this article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
Docket No: FAA-2015-1429 Dir ID: 2014-NM-246-AD

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 12/12/14

Regional Airline Association 12/12/14

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 12/12/14

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 12/12/14