alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Port Huron Machinery Company, appellee, v. Lewis J. Larson et al., appellants.

Filed January 7, 1914.

No. 17,440.

Fraudulent Conveyances: Creditors’ Suit. Real estate fraudulently transferred to prevent the collection of the grantor’s debts, with full knowledge of the grantee, may be subjected to the payment of a judgment subsequently rendered against the grantor upon a claim existing at the time of the fraudulent conveyance.

Appeal from the district court for Pierce county: Anson A. Welch, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Fred FI. Free*and *K. W. McDonald,*for appellants.

*A. J. Sawyer, H. F. Barnhart*and *Morning & Ledwith, contra.*

*61Rose, J.

This is a creditor’s hill. In the district court for Lancaster county plaintiff recovered a judgment against Lewis J. Larson for $862.96, and filed a transcript thereof in the district court for Pierce county, where an execution was issued and returned unsatisfied. The debtor, through a devise from his father, had previously acquired a one-fifth interest in a number of tracts of land in Pierce county. This interest, on the face of a quitclaim deed, was transferred to Weaver L. Larson,, a brother of grantor, for the expressed consideration of $350, before plaintiff recovered judgment, but after the debt had been incurred. The present suit was brought in the district court for Pierce county to subject the property described in the quitclaim deed to the payment of plaintiff’s judgment, on the ground that the conveyance was made for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff and to hinder and delay it in collecting its claim. All of the defendants made default, except the grantee named in the alleged fraudulent quitclaim deed, who answered that he purchased the property for value, in good faith, without knowledge of his brother’s indebtedness to plaintiff. On a trial of the issues, the. district court found that the quitclaim deed was made with the intent to hinder, delay and defraud plaintiff, while grantee had full knowledge of the facts. From a decree subjecting the property in controversy to the payment of plaintiff’s judgment, grantee has appealed.

The sufficiency of the evidence to justify the relief granted is the only question presented. On the issue of fact, the preponderance of the evidence is clearly in favor of plaintiff. Grantor was insolvent when he made the deed, and his intention to prevent the collection of plaintiff’s claim is fairly established by the proofs. The proper finding from all the circumstances is that grantee knew of his brother’s intention to defraud plaintiff, and accepted the deed with full knowledge of the facts, if he did not participate actively in the fraud.

Affirmed.

Letton, Fawcett and Hamer, JJ., not sitting.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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, as of, and for the periods
presented in the Report.
 /s/ Charles D. JohnstonCharles D. JohnstonPresident & Chief Executive OfficerMarch 30, 2007
  (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, as of, and for the periods
presented in the Report.
 /s/ Anthony A. ScaleseAnthony A. ScaleseChief Financial Officer & Principal Accounting OfficerMarch 30, 2007
 A signed original of these written statements required by section 906 have been provided
to QualMark Corporation and will be retained by QualMark Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Sec. 16 Liquidated damages. ( a ) The liquidated damages payable for each calendar day of delay shall be placed on each job order and supplemental job order whether awarded on a competitive bid or negotiated basis.
( b ) The completion certificates are to contain the date on which work is actually completed, whereas the job order and supplemental job orders are to contain a completion date based on a fair and reasonable estimate of time to be allowed the contractor to perform the work. Thus, the difference between the completion date specified on the job order or supplemental job orders and on the completion certificates will be the period for which liquidated damages are assessed. If an extension of an original completion date is considered justifiable, the completion certificates are to bear in detail in the space provided for “exceptions” the reasons why the completion dates were extended beyond that specified in the original job orders. The face of the Ship Repair Summaries (MA-159) shall reflect the amounts of liquidated damages. The penalty amount shall be deducted from the invoice prior to payment for the work involved.
[18 FR 5035, Aug. 22, 1953; 18 FR 5294, Sept. 2, 1953. Redesignated at 45 FR 44587, July 1, 1980]
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.010-6 Capacity of buoyant apparatus. ( a ) The number of persons for which a buoyant apparatus is approved must be the lowest number determined by the following methods: ( 1 ) Final buoyancy of the buoyant apparatus in Newtons after the watertight integrity test as described in § 160.010-7 (e) and (f), divided by 145 (divided by 32 if buoyancy is measured in pounds). The divisor must be changed to 180 (40 if buoyancy is measured in pounds) if the apparatus is designed so that persons supported are only partially immersed or where facilities are provided for climbing on top of the apparatus.
( 2 ) Number of 300 mm (1 ft.) increments in the outside perimeter of the buoyant apparatus. The inside edge of peripheral-body type buoyant apparatus is not considered in determining the capacity.
( b ) [Reserved]
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


Pursuant  to  section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b)  of  section  1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned  officers  of Network Installation Corporation, a Nevada corporation
(the  "Company"),  does  hereby  certify,  to  such  officer's  knowledge, that:

The  quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the "Form 10-QSB") of
the  Company  fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form
10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition and
results  of  operations  of  the  Company.





/s/  Jeffrey  R.  Hultman
--------------------------------------
Jeffrey  R.  Hultman
Chief  Executive  Officer
Dated:  July  29,  2005







/s/  Michael  V.  Rosenthal
--------------------------------------
Michael  V.  Rosenthal
Chief  Financial  Officer
Dated:  July  29,  2005
###### Editorial Note on Part 153

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 153.461 Electrical bonding of independent tanks.

An independent metallic cargo tank that carries a flammable or combustible cargo must be electrically bonded to the tankship's hull.
|Exhibit 32.2
|------------



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

The undersigned hereby certifies in her capacity as Chief Financial Officer of Belcrest Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on her knowledge:

|(a) | the Quarterly Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                        
|   



|Date: May 10, 2006
|------------------



| | /s/ Michelle A. GreenMichelle A. GreenChief Financial Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 159.001-4 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-ENG-4), 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( b ) International Maritime Organization (IMO) Publishing, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 7735 7611, *http://www.imo.org .* ( 1 ) Resolution A.739(18), Guidelines for the Authorization of Organizations Acting on Behalf of the Administration, November 22, 1993, IBR approved for § 159.001-3.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) International Organization for Standardization, ISO Central Secretariat BIBC II, Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland, +41 22 749 01 11, *http://www.iso.org .* ( 1 ) ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), International Standard: General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, Second edition, 15 May 2005 (“ISO/IEC 17025”), IBR approved for § 159.010-3(a).
( 2 ) [Reserved]
[USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48273, July 22, 2016]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 72 (Monday, April 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 19022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1864]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Gettysburg National Military Park Advisory Commission

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of June 14, 2007 and October 4, 2007 meetings.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the date of the June 14, 2007 and 
October 4, 2007 meetings of the Gettysburg National Military Park 
Advisory Commission.

DATE: The public meetings will be held on June 14, 2007 and October 4, 
2007 from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
    Location: The meetings will be held at the Cyclorama Auditorium, 
125 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325.
    Agenda: The June 14, 2007 meeting in addition to the following 
consists of Nomination of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for the 2007 
Year, then at both the June 14, 2007 and October 4, 2007 meetings there 
will be Sub-Committee Reports from the Historical, Executive, and 
Interpretive Committees; Federal Consistency Reports Within the 
Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District; Operational Updates on Park 
Activities which include an update on the new Visitor Center/Museum 
Complex, also on the Wills House project, Landscape Rehabilitation, and 
the Shuttle System; and the Citizen's Open Forum where the public make 
comments and ask any questions on any park activity.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John A. Latschar, Superintendent, 
Gettysburg National Military Park, 97 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, 
Pennsylvania 17325.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meetings will be open to the public. Any 
member of the public may file with the Commission a written statement 
concerning agenda items. The Statement should be addressed to the 
Gettysburg National Military Park Advisory Commission, 97 Taneytown 
Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325.

    Dated: March 9, 2007.
Dr. John A. Latschar,
Superintendent, Gettysburg NMP/Eisenhower NHS.
[FR Doc. 07-1864 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JT-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND DIVISION

THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et

al.,

Defendants.

Action No. 3:08–CV–483

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunctions

(Docket Nos. 3, 53), Consolidation of Hearing with Trial on the Merits (Docket No. 5), to

Expedite this matter (Docket No. 6), and Consolidation of Hearings for both Preliminary

Injunctions (Docket No. 58). Upon due consideration, and for the reasons stated in the

Memorandum Opinion that will follow this Order, the Court GRANTS the Motion to

Consolidate the Hearings of the first and second Preliminary Injunctions. This Court further

DENIES both Preliminary Injunctions, DENIES Consolidation of Hearing with Trial on the

Merits, and DENIES Expediting this matter. This case shall be scheduled for the next

pretrial conference date.

A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy,” one “to be granted only

sparingly.” In re Microsoft Litig., 333 F.3d 517, 524 (4th Cir. 2003). Additionally, the party

seeking the preliminary injunction bears the burden of proving that each factor supports

granting relief. Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 812 (4th Cir.

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 65 Filed 09/11/2008 Page 1 of 2
1991). In consideration of a Preliminary Injunction, the Court must weigh four factors: (1)

the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if its request for relief is denied; (2) the

likelihood of harm to the defendant if the requested relief is granted; (3) the likelihood that

the plaintiff will succeed on the merits of its claim; and (4) the public interest. Blackwelder

Furniture Co. v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189, 193 (4th Cir. 1977). 

After hearing the arguments presented by all parties, this Court finds that Plaintiff is

unlikely to succeed on the merits of the claims of unconstitutionality of the challenged

provisions. Further, this Court has considered the irreparable harm element and finds that

in balancing the harms of each party, the harm to the Defendants will be greater than the

harm to the Plaintiff. Lastly, this Court finds that a grant of these injunctions would

negatively impact the public. Because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success

on the merits, an irreparable harm greater than that of Defendants, and that public policy

would be served by granting these injunctions, Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden. 

Accordingly, this Court DENIES both Motions for Preliminary Injunction. 

A Memorandum supporting these findings will follow this Order. 

Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

It is SO ORDERED.

ENTERED this 11th day of September 2008

 /s/ 

James R. Spencer

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 65 Filed 09/11/2008 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s Report and 

Recommendation. (Dkt. 21.) At the conclusion of her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate 

Judge Stafford notified the parties that they were required to file any objections within fourteen 

days of service, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Eastern District of 

Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d), and that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of 

any further right of appeal.” (Report & Recommendation at 16.) No objections were filed. 

In United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981), the Sixth Circuit 

established a rule of procedural default, holding that “a party shall file objections with the district 

court or else waive right to appeal.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 144 (1985), the Supreme 

Court held that this rule violates neither the Federal Magistrates Act nor the federal constitution. 

Pursuant to Walters and Thomas, Fisher’s “failure to object is a procedural default, waiving his 

right for this Court to review the report and recommendation.” See Johnson v. Clafton, No. 13-

CV-14922-LJM, 2015 WL 4770105, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 13, 2015). 

MATTHEW FISHER, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-13516 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [17], 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [14], AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 

2:14-cv-13516-LJM-EAS Doc # 22 Filed 11/30/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1961
2 

The Court therefore finds that Fisher has waived further review of the Report and accepts 

the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition. It follows that Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17) is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 

14) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Commissioner’s decision is 

REVERSED and this matter shall be REMANDED for further consideration consistent with the 

Report and Recommendation, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

 SO ORDERED. 

s/Laurie J. Michelson 

LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 Dated: November 30, 2015 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys 

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on November 30, 2015. 

 s/Jane Johnson 

Case Manager to 

 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

2:14-cv-13516-LJM-EAS Doc # 22 Filed 11/30/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1962
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.314 Ventilation of spaces not usually occupied. ( a ) Each tankship must have portable ventilation equipment that fits the mount required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( b ) Each enclosed space within the cargo area that does not have a permanent ventilation system meeting § 153.312 must have: ( 1 ) A mount for the portable mechanical ventilation equipment required by this section; and
( 2 ) Either permanent ventilation ductwork connected to the mount and arranged to supply air to the extremities of the space; or
( 3 ) An attachment for temporary ductwork at the mount with enough ductway in the ventilated space and temporary ductwork stowed aboard the vessel to supply air to the extremities of the space.
[CGD 73-96, 42 FR 49027, Sept. 26, 1977, as amended by CGD 78-128, 47 FR 21208, May 17, 1982]
###### Editorial Note on Part 154

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 154.452 External pressure.

The design external pressure, Pe, for an independent tank type C must be calculated by the following formula:

Pe = P1 + P2 + P3 + P4

where:

P1 = the vacuum relief valve setting for tanks with a vacuum relief valve, or 24.5 kPa gauge (3.55 psig) for tanks without a vacuum relief valve.

P2 = 0, or the pressure relief valve setting for an enclosed space containing any portion of a pressure vessel.

P3 = total compressive load in the tank shell from the weight of the tank, including corrosion allowance, weight of insulation, weight of dome, weight of pipe tower and piping, the effect of the partially filled tank, the effect of acceleration and hull deflection, and the local effect of external and internal pressure.

P4 = 0, or the external pressure from the head of water from any portion of the pressure vessel on exposed decks.
###### Editorial Note on Part 154

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 154.1804 Document posted in wheelhouse.

No person may operate a U.S. flag vessel unless the documents under § 154.1801 are under glass in a conspicuous place in the wheelhouse.