alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued April 19,

affirmed September 25,

rehearing denied November 13, 1928.

#### PACIFIC EXPORT LUMBER CO. *v.*CLATSKANIE STATE BANK.

(270 Pac. 499.)

*205For appellant there was a brief and oral argument by *Mr. W. C. Bristol.*

For respondent there ivas a brief over the name of *Mr. Glen B. Metsher,*with an oral argument by *Mr. Edward F. Fisher.*

PER CURIAM.

 Plaintiff appeals from an order of dismissal. After the cause was at issue under the pleadings, defendant objected to the introduction of any testimony on the ground that equity had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. The objection was sustained and plaintiff elected to stand upon its pleadings. The complaint covers 31 pages of the printed abstract and, through the maze of words, it is difficult to tell, with any degree of certainty, what it is all about. Those who prefer to use ten words where one will suffice must assume the risk. The pleading is not the simple and concise statement of facts that the statute contemplates. The trial court was right in refusing to take cognizance of the matter.

 The objection to equitable jurisdiction was not waived by answering to the merits, since the matter alleged was wholly foreign to equity: *Maxwell*v. *Frazier,*32 Or. 183 (96 Pac. 548, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 102). The complaint, stripped of its verbiage, alleges, if anything, a breach of contract resulting in damages. It is insisted that it was error, by reason of Section 390, Or. L., to dismiss the cause for having been brought on the wrong side of the court. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend its pleadings *206to obviate the objection made, but refused so to do. It assumed tbe unalterable position that equity did have jurisdiction of the cause. Under the circumstances, the trial court did right in entering a judgment of dismissal.

The judgment entered is affirmed.

Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.
Exhibit 10.3

                   AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE
                     ACCOUNTS AND SECURITY AGREEMENT

This AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ACCOUNTS AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
(the "Amendment"), dated effective as of August 8, 2003 (the "Effective
Date"), is made by and between NEW AGE STAFFING, INC., a Texas corporation,
("Seller"), and KATZ FACTORING, INC., a LA corporation ("Purchaser").

                          W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser entered into that certain Agreement to
Purchase Accounts and Security Agreement, dated as of February 8, 2002 (the
"Factoring Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser desire to amend the Factoring Agreement to
extend the term thereof.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual
covenants and premises contained herein, together with other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto have agreed and do hereby agree as follows:

1.     Section 2 of the Factoring Agreement is hereby amended and restated
in its entirety to read as follows:

Provided that no Event of Default has occurred, Purchaser's obligation to
purchase Eligible Accounts from Seller shall be in effect through November
30th 2003, but Seller may cancel this Agreement at any time upon not less
than 5 days' advance written notice to Purchaser. No such cancellation
shall, however, be effective unless Seller first pays all amounts then due
Purchaser under this Agreement.

2.     It is further understood and agreed by the parties hereto that all
terms and conditions of the Factoring Agreement, except as herein modified,
shall remain in full force and effect.

3.     This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one in the same instrument.

             [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

<PAGE>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
executed as of the day and year first above written.

SELLER:

NEW AGE STAFFING, INC.

By: /s/ Nick Liuzza, Jr.
    --------------------------
    Nick Liuzza, Jr.
    President/CEO


PURCHASER:

KATZ FACTORING, INC.

By: /s/ Stephen I. Katz
    --------------------------
    Steve Katz
    President
                                 2
JACOB MERCER

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3248

___________ __________________/

Opinion filed November 3, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark J. Borello , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
§ 38.95 Enforcement when voluntary compliance cannot be secured. If the Director concludes that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means, the Director must either: ( a ) Issue a Final Determination;
( b ) Refer the matter to the Attorney General with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be instituted; or
( c ) Take such other action as may be provided by law.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 10442 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**David Aguilar Reyes,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18

- CR

- 260

- 1

Before **Wiener, Elrod,**  and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent David Aguilar Reyes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Reyes has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the rel evant portions of the record reflected therein. We

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R.**  47.5

. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 7, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10442 Document: 00516570608 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2022No. 22

- 10442

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further respo nsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 22-10442 Document: 00516570608 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2022
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

	I, Neil F. M. McKay, certify that:

	1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Capitol Federal Financial;

	2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact 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 included in this 			report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash 			flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

	4.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining 			disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 			for the registrant and 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by 				others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being 				prepared;

		b)	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and 				presented in this report our conclusions 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

		c)	disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant's internal control over financial 				reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has 				materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal 				control over financial reporting; and	

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

		a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal 				control which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

 

Date: February 4, 2005

By: /s/ Neil F. M. McKay                           
Neil F. M. McKay

						Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer of

HORIZON BANCORPORATION, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1. Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (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 Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.'

/S/ James J. Bazata
James J. Bazata, 
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 9, 2004
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 4, 2021

t0601

Order 

Clerk

June 4, 2021

162645

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 162645

COA: 354244

Oakland CC: 2016-260666-FH

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL BURNS- CRAWFORD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 22, 2020 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Oakland County 

Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after 

the date of this order. 

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
#### *The People *ex relatione*Smith, vs. Joseph Mullin, Esq., *a*supreme court commissioner.

An *infant*imprisoned in execution in a civil suit, is entitled to *a discharge from imprisonment*on assigning his property, in compliance with the provisions of the statute; and such assign, mcnt is valid, notwithstanding his non-age.

The relator, imprisoned on an execution in an action of assault and battery, presented a petition to a supreme court commissioner, praying a discharge from imprisonment on compliance with the -provisions of the sixth article, of title first, of the fifth chapter of the second part of the Revised Statutes, relative to *voluntary assignments by a debtor*imprisoned in execution in civil cases, 2 *R. S.*31. On the day of shewing cause, the commissioner refused to grant the discharge, on the ground that the relator being a *minor,*an assignment by him of the property set forth in the account annexed to his petition, would be invalid. The above facts appeared on a return to an alternative mandamus. A motion was now made for a peremptory mandamus which was granted by the chief justice, who held that an *infant,*as well as an *adult*was entitled to the benefit of the act, which is general in its terms,1 viz: “ *every*person” *“*may at any time petition,” &e. Besides the relief from imprisonment being so highly beneficial to the petitioner, his act in making an assignment must in law be regarded as valid notwithstanding his non-age.

Motion granted.
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA - 20 14 - 0465 Directorate ID : 20 13 - SW - 044 - AD Helicopter Model: Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 115 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reaso n : The proposed actions of this AD are intended to prevent loss of hydraulic power and subsequent loss of helicopter control. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 3, 089 Labor per Helicopter ( 6 work-hour x 

### $ 8 5 /work hour to replace the hydraulic hoses ) $ 510 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 3,599 Total US Fleet Cost $ 413,885 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Ye s ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Matt Wilbanks
#### § 2.15 Protection of witnesses.

A witness has the right, prior to or during his testimony, to exclude audiovisual coverage of his testimony in any hearing being covered audiovisually.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Nursing Research Initial Review Group, NINR IRG.                    

*Date:*                         June 19-20, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 am to 5 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications and/or proposals.                              ( print page 33342)    

*Place:*                         Holiday Inn—Chevy Chase, Terrace Room, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Mary J. Stephens-Frazier, Phd, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN32, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-5971.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 16, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-12897  Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### § 37.75 Is there a right of representation in the complaint process?

Yes. Both the complainant and the respondent have the right to be represented by an attorney or other individual of their choice.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6846

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DERRICK JACKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting

by designation. (CR-96-354-MJG, CR-96-354-HNM, CA-00-3343-HNM)

Submitted: July 12, 2002 Decided: July 26, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Jackson, Nos. CR-96-354-MJG; CR-96-

354-HNM; CA-00-3343-HNM (D. Md. May 9, 2001). 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
EXHIBIT 21
 LA-Z-BOY INCORPORATED LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
 Jurisdiction ofSubsidiary
    
    IncorporationAlexvale Furniture, Inc.
    
    North CarolinaBauhaus U.S.A., Inc.
    
    MississippiBedford Chair Company, Inc. (f/k/a Sam Moore Furniture Industries, Inc.)
    
    VirginiaBoca Raton Galleries, LLC
    
    MichiganCenturion Furniture plc (d/b/a La-Z-Boy UK)
    
    United KingdomEngland, Inc.
    
    MichiganKincaid Furniture Company, Incorporated
    
    DelawareLa-Z-Boy Asia Co., LTD (51%)
    
    ThailandLa-Z-Boy Canada Limited
    
    Ontario, CanadaLa-Z-Boy Europe B.V. (50%)
    
    The NetherlandsLa-Z-Boy Germany GmbH
    
    GermanyLa-Z-Boy Global Limited (f/k/a LZB Florida Realty, Inc.)
    
    MichiganLa-Z-Boy Greensboro, Inc. (f/k/a LADD Furniture, Inc.)
    
    North CarolinaLa-Z-Boy Hospitality, LLC
    
    MichiganLa-Z-Boy Import Sourcing, Inc. (f/k/a La-Z-Boy Global Ltd.)
    
    MichiganLa-Z-Boy Logistics, Inc.
    
    MichiganLa-Z-Boy Muebles, S. de R.L.de C.V.
    
    MexicoLa-Z-Boy Showcase Shoppes, Inc.
    
    IndianaLa-Z-Boy (Thailand) Ltd. (51%)
    
    ThailandLADD International Sales Corporation
    
    BarbadosLADD Transportation, Inc. (d/b/a La-Z-Boy Transportation)
    
    North CarolinaLZB Alabama Properties, Inc.
    
    MichiganLZB Carolina Properties, Inc.
    
    MichiganLZB Delaware Valley Inc.
    
    DelawareLZB Delaware Valley Properties, Inc.
    
    MichiganLZBFG of South Florida, LLC
    
    MichiganLZB Finance, Inc.
    
    MichiganLZB Furniture Galleries of Boston, Inc.
    
    MichiganLZB Furniture Galleries of Kansas City, Inc.
    
    MichiganLZB Furniture Galleries of Paramus, Inc.
    
    MichiganLZB Furniture Galleries of Pittsburgh LLC.
    
    MichiganLZB Furniture Galleries of Rochester, Inc
    
    MichiganLZB Furniture Galleries of St. Louis, Inc.
    
    MichiganLZB Furniture Galleries of Washington D.C., Inc.
    
    MichiganLZB Manufacturing, Inc.
    
    MichiganLZB Retail, Inc.
    
    MichiganMontgomeryville Home Furnishings, Inc.
    
    PennsylvaniaNorth Carolina Contract Sales Corporation (f/k/a LADD Contract Sales Corporation)
    
    North CarolinaPennsylvania House, Inc.
    
    North CarolinaSt. Clair Insurance Company
    
    Cayman IslandsVirginia Contract Furniture Company (f/k/a American Furniture Company, Incorporated)
    
    Virginia
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 28 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
S. J. RES. 28

     Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications 
         Commission with respect to broadcast media ownership.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 5, 2008

 Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Collins, Mr. Dodd, 
Mr. Obama, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Biden, Mr. Reed, 
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Tester, and Mr. Stevens) submitted the 
    following resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
           Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
     Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications 
         Commission with respect to broadcast media ownership.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to 
broadcast media ownership (Report and Order FCC 07-216), received by 
Congress on February 22, 2008, and such rule shall have no force or 
effect.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60083 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus RICHARD TIMOTHY ROBINSON, a/k/a Richard Thomas Robinson, a/k/a Richard Timothy Robinson, and a/k/a Richard T. Cody, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:94-CR-98-BN - - - - - - - - - - June 27, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Richard Timothy Robinson has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and we have independently reviewed the brief and the record and found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.