alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Marilyn McCollom v. Newcor Ventures, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-17-00900-CV

Trial court case number: 1095606

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County

Appellant, Marilyn McCollum, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s final 

judgment in a forcible detainer proceeding. The judgment awards possession of the 

property at issue to appellee, Newcor Ventures, Inc.; provides that “a writ of possession 

may issue on or after January 5, 2018”; and sets a supersedeas bond in the amount of 

$24,000.00. On December 29, 2017, McCollom filed an “Emergency Motion to Stay 

Eviction Order and Posting of Supersedeas Bond.” She asks that we “stay the execution 

of the eviction or payment of the supersedeas bond.”

We deny McCollom’s motion. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (Vernon 

Supp. 2017) (“A judgment of a county court may not under any circumstances be stayed 

pending appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a 

supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court.”); TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.13 (“The 

judgment of the county court may not be stayed unless within 10 days from the judgment 

the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court pursuant to 

Section 24.007 of the Texas Property Code.”); see also Hernandez v. U.S. Bank Trust 

N.A. as Trustee for LSF8 Master Participation Trust, 527 S.W.3d 307, 310 (Tex. App.—

El Paso 2017, no pet.); Guillen v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 494 S.W.3d 861, 865 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.)

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 3, 2018
May 15, 2003
                                                            Exhibit 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Multi-Tech International
Corp, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), "), on the date hereof I, Dr. David F. Hostelley,
Principal Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to 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 result of
        operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Multi-Tech International Corp. and will be retained by Multi-Tech
International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

                                            /s/ Dr. David F. Hostelley
                             -------------------------------------------
                                             Dr. David F. Hostelley
                                             Principal Financial Officer
#### Lee T. Alton, Appellant, *v.*The New York Taxicab Company, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

February, 1910.)

Warehousing — Lien for charges — Storage by one not a warehouseman.

A casual bailee who is not a warehouseman or one lawfully engaged in the business of storing goods for profit has no lien for storage charges on goods stored with him; and the owner may maintain an action against him for conversion upon liis refusal to deliver the goods until the charge for storage is paid.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fifth district, borough of Manhattan, dismissing the complaint without prejudice to a new action.

Thomas & Oppenheimer, for appellant.

Lewis D. Mooney, for respondent.

Bijur, J.

The action is one for conversion of a lathe originally stored with the defendant for mutual benefit. *192After defendant notified plaintiff to remove it, the latter delayed for about four months, after which his demand for the return of the lathe was refused, unless he paid a reasonable storage charge therefor. ISTo lien, however, inures upon stored goods in favor of a casual bailee, either by commercial usage or the laws of this State. By Laws of 1907, chapter 732, section 27 (now section 112 of the General Business Law), the right to a lien is limited to a warehouseman, defined as *“*a person lawfully engaged in the business of storing goods for profit.” General Business Law, § 142.

The history and *rationale*of this lien may be found in Trust v. Pirsson, 1 Hilt. 292, 297; Eivara v. Ghio, 3 E. D. Smith, 263, 267; cited with approval in Merritt v. Peirano, 10 App. Div. 563, 565; Lyungstrandh v. Haaker Co., 16 Mise. Eep. 387. See also Eobinson v. Kaplan, 21 Mise. Eep. 686, 689.

Upon the record of this case, it would seem that plaintiff had made out a *prima facie*case of conversion, since defendant, while entitled to recover a reasonable charge for storage, had no right to refuse to return the lathe until that charge was paid.

Seabuey and Lehman, TJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
# EUR-Lex - 12002M027A - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002M027A

**Treaty on European Union (Nice consolidated version) - Title V: Provisions on a common foreign and security policy - Article 27 a **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0020 - 0020 *

Treaty on European Union (Nice consolidated version)

Title V: Provisions on a common foreign and security policy

Article 27

Article 27a

1. Enhanced cooperation in any of the areas referred to in this title shall be aimed at safeguarding the values and serving the interests of the Union as a whole by asserting its identity as a coherent force on the international scene. It shall respect:

- the principles, objectives, general guidelines and consistency of the common foreign and security policy and the decisions taken within the framework of that policy,

- the powers of the European Community, and

- consistency between all the Union's policies and its external activities.

2. Articles 11 to 27 and Articles 27b to 28 shall apply to the enhanced cooperation provided for in this article, save as otherwise provided in Article 27c and Articles 43 to 45.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, DR. JACOB D. DUSTIN, VICE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY, AND TREASURER OF
INTREPID TECHNOLOGY & RESOURCES INC., (THE "COMPANY"), DO HEREBY CERTIFY,
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, THAT, TO MY KNOWLEDGE:

   (a) THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB OF THE COMPANY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
MARCH 31, 2003, AS FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (THE
"REPORT"), FULLY COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 13(a) OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934; AND

   (b) THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT FAIRLY PRESENTS, IN ALL MATERIAL
RESPECTS, THE FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY.


DATED: MAY 13, 2003

/s/ DR. JACOB D. DUSTIN



----------------------------------------------------------

JACOB D. DUSTIN
VICE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY, AND TREASURER
§ 78.22 Objections to applications. ( a ) Any party in interest may file a petition to deny any application (whether as originally filed or as amended) no later than thirty (30) days after issuance of a public notice of the acceptance for filing of any such application or amendment thereto. Petitions to deny shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that the petitioner is a party in interest and that a grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.
( b ) The applicant may file an opposition to any petition to deny, and the petitioner may file a reply to such opposition (see § 1.45 of this chapter), in which allegations of fact or denials thereof shall be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.
( c ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, before Commission action on any application for an instrument of authorization, any person may file informal objections to the grant. Such objections may be submitted in letter form (without extra copies) and shall be signed by the objector. The limitation on pleadings and time for filing pleadings provided for in § 1.45 of this chapter shall not be applicable to any objections duly filed pursuant to this paragraph.
[37 FR 15927, Aug. 8, 1972, as amended at 50 FR 23421, June 4, 1985]
§ 600.140 Procedure for proposed regulations. ( a ) Each Council must establish a written procedure for proposed regulations consistent with section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The procedure must describe how the Council deems proposed regulations necessary or appropriate for the purposes of implementing a fishery management plan or a plan amendment, or making modifications to regulations implementing a fishery management plan or plan amendment. In addition, the procedure must describe how the Council submits proposed regulations to the Secretary.
( b ) The Councils must include the procedure for proposed regulations in its SOPP, see § 600.115, or other written documentation that is available to the public.
[75 FR 59150, Sept. 27, 2010]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 19, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 54795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7779]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

Date and Time: Wednesday, September 13, 2006, 9-9:30 a.m., 2-4 p.m.

Place: Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave., SW., 
Washington, DC 20237.

Closed Meeting: The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
(BBG) will meet in closed session to review and discuss a number of 
issues relating to U.S. Government-funded non-military international 
broadcasting. They will address internal procedural, budgetary, and 
personnel issues, as well as sensitive foreign policy issues relating 
to potential options in the U.S. international broadcasting field. This 
meeting is closed because if open it likely would either disclose 
matters that would be properly classified to be kept secret in the 
interest of foreign policy under the appropriate executive order (5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(1)) or would disclose information the premature 
disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate 
implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B)). 
In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely to the internal 
personnel and organizational issues of the BBG or the International 
Broadcasting Bureau. (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Persons interested in obtaining more 
information should contact Carol Booker at (202) 203-4545.

    Dated: September 13, 2006.
Carol Booker,
Legal Counsel.
[FR Doc. 06-7779 Filed 9-15-06; 12:01 pm]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
---

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 

I, Donald Sharpe, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eden Energy Corp.
      for the period ended March 31, 2008 (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 Eden Energy Corp.                                                                 

Dated: May 13, 2008

| | /s/
      Donald Sharpe      
| | -----------------------------
| | Donald Sharpe                
| | President                    
| | (Principal Executive Officer)
| | Eden Energy Corp.            

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Eden Energy
Corp. and will be retained by Eden Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

#### Samuel Schuyler agt. The Steamer Corsica, &c.

Where two *steam vessels*are crossing each others courses—one having the other on her starboard side, being in plain sight of each other, in an open river at midday, in clear weather and no other vessels moving near them to affect in any way their action, it is the duty of the vessel standing on the starboard side to *keep on her*course, and the duty of the other to avoid her.

*Southern District,*1869.

This was an action brought to recover $41,000, being the damages arising out of a collision which happened in this port on the 9th of November, 1865, between the steamer America and the steamer Corsica.

The Corsica was at the time proceeding down the North river, bound to sea. The America was below her and proceeding across the river from the battery to her pier at the foot of Sussex street, Jersey City. The America was struck on the starboard side, some forty feet from the stern, the Corsica sweeping aft without injuring the hull of the America, but staving off her starboard guard, from the gangway aft to the whe'el, staving the wheel and bringing up with great force upon the shaft, which was split in the inboard journal, and shoved off against the after wheel-beam.

Mr. Van Santvoord, *for libelant.*

Mr. Lord, *for claimant.*

Benedict, J.

This case has been argued with earnestness on both sides, and the voluminous evidence presented before me has received my careful attention. The argument on the part of the Corsica is ingenious, but it has failed to convince me of the correctness of the management of that vessel up*263on the occasion in question, and I must hold the libelant entitled to recover.

The two vessels were crossing each others courses, the America having the Corsica upon her starboard side. They were in plain sight of each other in an open river at midday, in clear whether, and no other vessels were moving near them to affect in any way their action. It is therefore, no special case, but one manifestly within the provisions of art. 14 and 18 of the rules of 1864. Under these rules it was the duty of the Corsica to keep on her course, and the duty of the America to avoid her.

The America, accordingly, stopped before she reached the course of the Corsica, and backed, and I am satisfied would have avoided her, had not the latter vessel disregarded the rule, and instead of keeping on her course down the river, undertaken to avoid the America by sheering to the east. This action on the part of the Corsica, which I do not find justified by any circumstances proved in the case, was the cause of the collision which ensued, and renders her responsible for the damage caused thereby.

As to the defense that the Corsica was under the direction of a licensed pilot, and therefore not responsible for a collision caused by his improper order, it is sufficient to say that this defense has been overruled by the circuit court of this circuit in the case of the China.

The decree must accordingly be for the libelant, with an order of reference to ascertain the amount of the loss.
```

                                                       Exhibit 99.3

                  OFFICER'S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

I,  Andrew  J.  Cederoth,  a  duly  authorized   representative  of
Navistar Financial Corporation, the Servicer, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed the annual report and other reports  containing
    distribution  information  for the period covered by the annual
    report;

2.  The absence in these reports,  to the best of my knowledge,  of
    any  untrue  statement  of  material  fact  or  omission  of  a
    material fact necessary to make the  statements  made, in light
    of the  circumstances  under which such  statements  were made,
    not misleading;

3.  The  inclusion in these  reports,  to the best of my knowledge,
    of the  financial  information  required  to be provided to the
    trustee under the governing documents of the issuer; and

4.  The  Servicer  complies  with  its  servicing  obligations  and
    minimum servicing standards.

                                         By:  /s/ANDREW J. CEDEROTH
                                                 Andrew J. Cederoth
                                                 Vice President and Treasurer

December 18, 2003
```
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0351 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2009-SW-049-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I Dr. Dennis D. Keiser, President and Chief Executive Officer of Intrepid
Technology & Resources, Inc., (the "Company") , do hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

     o    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A as amended, of the Company for
          the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
          Exchange Commission (the "Report"), fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934; and

     o    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.





Dated: February 18, 2004


/s/ Dr. Dennis D. Keiser


--------------------------------------


Dennis D. Keiser


President and Chief Executive Officer


and,


I Dr. Jacob D. Dustin, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer of Intrepid
Technology & Resources, Inc., (the "Company") , do hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

     o    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A as amended, of the Company for
          the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
          Exchange Commission (the "Report"), fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934; and

     o    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.




Dated: February 18, 2004


/s/ Dr. Jacob D. Dustin



----------------------------------------------------------

Jacob D. Dustin

Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer
§ 402.47 Special consultation procedures for complex FIFRA actions. ( a ) *Successive effects determinations.* If EPA determines after conferring with the Service that consultation on a FIFRA action will be unusually complex due to factors such as the geographic area or number of species that may be affected by the action, EPA may address the effects of the action through successive effects determinations under this subpart addressing groupings or categories of species or habitats as established by EPA. EPA may initiate consultation based upon each such effects determination using the procedure in § 402.46(a), and the provisions of § 402.46(b) and (c) shall apply to any such consultation. When consultation is conducted under this section, the written statement or opinion provided by the Service under § 402.46(c) constitutes a partial biological opinion as to the species or habitats that are the subject of the consultation. While not constituting completion of consultation under section 7(a)(2), EPA retains authority to use such a partial biological opinion along with other available information in making a finding under section 7(d) of the Act.
( b ) *Opinion of the Secretary.* After conclusion of all consultation on the FIFRA action, the partial biological opinions issued under paragraph (a) of this section shall then collectively constitute the opinion of the Secretary and the incidental take statement, reasonable and prudent measures, and terms and conditions under section 7(b) of the Act except to the extent a partial biological opinion is modified by the Service in accordance with the procedures in § 402.46(c). The Service shall so advise EPA in writing upon issuance of the last partial biological opinion for the consultation.