alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Livezey et al. v. The Pueblo Hardware Company.

Appellate Practice.

Where the jury was properly instructed and the evidence was conflicting and contradictory, its finding will not be disturbed.

*Appeal from the District Court of Pueblo County.*

This suit was brought by appellee against the defendants to collect a book account of $135.08, and the amount of a promissory note for $249, executed by the firm of Dobbins & Co., payable to the order of John Livezey one day after date, dated May 13, 1891, assigned by Livezey to the plaintiff July 29,1891.

The complaint is in the ordinary form. Dobbins & Bergenthal filed separate answers: 1st, denying that Livezey, Bergenthal and Dobbins were or ever had been partners under the firm name of G. L. Dobbins & Co., or any other name. 2d, alleging that the firm of Dobbins & Co. was composed of Dobbins and Bergenthal. 3d, denying the indebtedness of the book account. 4th, admitting the making and delivery of the note. 5th, alleging an indebtedness from Livezey to Bergenthal individually of the sum of $300, which had been assigned to Dobbins & Co., which would be set off against the note.

A trial of the issues was had to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $450.44, from which an appeal was prosecuted to this court.

Messrs. Hartman & Glenn and Mr. J. H. Mechem, for appellants.

Mr. Chas. E. Gast and Mr. E. E. Hubbell, for appellee.

Reed, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Although it appears that Livezey, a defendant below, is *560appellant here, we are at a loss to understand how he becomes one. It does not appear that he was served with process or entered his appearance. He made no answer, and no judgment by default was entered against him, nor does he appear to have in any way participitated in the proceedings or appeal. It appears that the motion for a new trial was made by Gf. L. Dobbins and Chas. Bergenthal, and overruled. Judgment entered against the firm of G. L. Dobbins & Co., and the appeal bond executed by “ G. L. Dobbins & Co.”

One of the principal issues of fact to be determined, and perhaps the controlling one in the disposition of the case, was whether or not Livezey was a member of the firm of Dobbins & Co. It was asserted in the complaint and denied in the answer. The evidence in regard to it was contradictory. The court did not instruct the jury to find upon the issue, and there was no finding except as it might be inferred from the general verdict, and such inference would be that they found that he was not a partner.

Eliminating from the discussion the question of his partnership, upon which there was no finding, no question of law was involved, but questions of fact only. The evidence on every question involved was conflicting and contradictory. Under such circumstances, the finding of the jury will not be disturbed, unless for misdirection by the court. In this case the instructions of the court, on all questions submitted, appear to be ample and correct.

The judgment of the court will be affirmed.

■ Affirmed.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending December 1, 2007

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending March 5, 2011

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location              | RSSDID  | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|----------------------------------- | ------- | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|KILLBUCK SVGS BK CO, KILLBUCK, OHIO | 1017425 | 10/18/2010 | 02/28/2011     | S         | Int Sm Bank

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Order filed March 31, 2015

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00244

- CR

____________ MARQUIS DIAMOND, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No. 1371877



### CONTINUING ABATEMENT ORDER
On December 1, 2014, a ppellant filed a motion to abate this appeal and direct the trial court to sign and file findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement. Article 3 8.22, section 6 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to make written fact findings and conclusions of law as to whether a challenged statement was made voluntarily, even if appellant did not request them or object to their absen ce. Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. art. 38.22 ' 6; Urias v. State , 155 S.W.3d 141, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The statute is mandatory and the proper procedure to correct the error is to abatethe appeal and direct the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions.

See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; Wicker v. State , 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). On December 4, 2014, we grant ed the motion and issue d an order abating the appeal and directing the trial court to make and file findings of fact and
concl usions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement and have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings and conclusions filed with
the c lerk of this Court on or before January 9, 2015.
The supplemental record containing the trial court ’s findings and conclusions was not filed as requested. On January 27, 2015, the c lerk of this court sent a letter to the trial court requesting that the supplemental record be filed with this court at the earliest possible date. The supplemental record ha s not been filed, and no response to this court’s letter has been received. Accordingly, we issue the following order.

T he trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s stateme nt and have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings and conclusions filed with
the c lerk of this court on or before April 30 , 2015.
The appeal remains abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this

c ourt’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this c ourt’s active docket
when the supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings and
recommendations is filed in this c ourt . The c ourt also will consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by eit her party. Appellant’s brief shall be due 30 days after the appeal is reinstated.

PER CURIAMPanel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and McCally.
Editorial Note on Part 98
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 98 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49232, Sept. 25, 2009.

§ 98.31-10 Certificate of inspection and NLS certificate endorsements. ( a ) The Coast Guard issues the endorsed Certificate of Inspection or NLS Certificate required by § 98.31-15 for every vessel under this subpart to carry NLSs if the vessel— ( 1 ) Has the Cargo Record Book prescribed in § 153.490(a)(1) of this chapter; and
( 2 ) Unless it discharges no NLS residues as defined in § 153.2 of this chapter to the sea, meets the requirements in §§ 153.470 through 153.491 of this chapter.
( b ) Each vessel under this subpart that does not meet the requirements in §§ 153.470 through 153.491 of this chapter must have a statement on its Certificate of Inspection or NLS Certificate stating that the vessel is prohibited from discharging NLS residues to the sea.
Exhibit 32.2

                    MAXUS REAL PROPERTY INVESTORS-FOUR, L.P.

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Maxus Real Property  Investors-Four,
L.P.  (the  "Partnership")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, John W. Alvey,  Vice  President,  Chief  Financial and Accounting
Officer of Maxus Capital Corp.,  General  Partner of the  Partnership,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the
Partnership  as of May 31,  2005  (the last date of the  period  covered  by the
Report).


/s/ John W. Alvey
-----------------
John W. Alvey
Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer of
Maxus Capital Corp.,
General Partner of the Partnership
July 12, 2005
-------------
**Exhibit      32.2**

**Certification      Pursuant to**

**Section      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| 1.   | The                Company's Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September                30,                2006, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the                "Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operation                of the                Company. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**In      Witness Whereof**

| /s/                Michael L. SarinaMichael                L. SarinaChief                Financial Officer |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

----
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1718 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1718

  To designate the United States courthouse located at 197 South Main 
Street in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, as the ``Max Rosenn United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 1995

Mr. Kanjorski introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 197 South Main 
Street in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, as the ``Max Rosenn United States 
                             Courthouse''.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 197 South Main Street in 
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the ``Max 
Rosenn United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the courthouse referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Max Rosenn United States 
Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 550.102 Scope.

Regulatory actions may be taken when the Commission finds, on its own motion or upon petition, that a foreign government has promulgated and enforced or intends to enforce laws, decrees, regulations or the like, or has engaged in or intends to engage in practices which presently have or prospectively could create conditions unfavorable to shipping in the foreign trade of the United States, or when owners, operators, agents or masters of foreign vessels engage in or intend to engage in competitive methods, pricing practices or other practices which have created or could create such conditions.

[64 FR 8009, Feb. 18, 1999]
#### The Farmers’ Highline Canal and Reservoir Company v. Bechtolt. Same v. Allen.

These cases are decided upon the authority of *Farmers' Highline Canal and Beservoir Company v. White, ante,*p. 1.

*Appeal from the District Court of Jefferson County.*

Messrs. Pence & Pence, for appellant.

Messrs. Benedict & Phelps and Mr. R. H. Gilmore, for appellees.

Per Chriam.

The questions of law and fact in these cases are the same as those determined in *Reservoir Co. v. White, ante,*p. 1. They are submitted upon the briefs and arguments in that case, and by stipulation were to abide the result; hence the respective decrees will be reversed and causes remanded, in conformity with the opinion in that case.

*Reversed.*
#### Russell *v.*Babbitt, *in rev.*

Evidence of an agreement made by the parties in the trial of a cause not limited to that trial nor to the purposes of that case is competent in an action of review of the same case.

In an action of review by the defendant, the amount in controversy does not exceed the amount of the judgment in the original action.

Action oe Review, by the defendant, to recover $57.55, being the amount of the judgment against him in the original action. The plaintiff in that action sued for $107. At the trial the parties agreed that if the plaintiff could recover anything it would be $57.55. To show that the amount in controversy in this action of review is less than $100, the defendant offered to prove that agreement, and moved to refer the action against the plaintiff’s objection.

*Barton,*for the plaintiff.

*Shirley 8f Oarr,*for the defendant.

Allen, J.

The case does not show that the agreement was intended by the parties to be limited to the original action, and evidence of the agreement is competent in this action of review upon the question of the amount in controversy. *Page*v. *Brewster,*58 N. H. 126.

The defendant’s right of review was a right to bring a new action to recover what he alleges has been wrongfully taken from him by the judgment in the original suit. *Page*v. *Brewster,*and cases cited. The amount in controversy, therefore, cannot exceed the amount of that judgment, which being less than $100, the action may be referred without the consent of the parties.

*Case discharged.*

BlNGHAM J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 12
Federal Reserve Bank of: San Francisco

## Filings received during the week ending October 23, 2010

|Filer                | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                             
|-------------------- | ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|ANCHOR BANCORP, INC. | * 3A1         | Anchor Bancorp, Inc., Lacey, Washington, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Anchor Mutual Savings Bank, Aberdeen, Washington, upon conversion from a mutual savings bank to a stock savings bank. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:04/15/2010
|Newspaper:           | Not available
|Federal Register:    | 04/15/2010   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
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




The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Capital Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date of this certification:




1. The Quarterly Report of the Company for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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.













CAPITAL GROUP HOLDINGS. INC.

FKA OASIS ONLINE TECHNOLOGIES CORP.July17, 2012
/s/ Erik J. CooperBy:
Erik J. CooperIts:
Chairman

President

Chief Executive Officer
#### § 109.15 Termination.

When the facts disclosed by an investigation indicate that further action is not warranted under this part at the time, the Administrator will close the investigation without prejudice to further investigation and notify the person being investigated of the decision. Nothing herein precludes civil enforcement action at a later time related to the findings of the investigation.
Exhibit 31.2 

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

 

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER 

 

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

 

I, Jordan M. Copland, Chief Financial Officer of GSI Commerce, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of GSI Commerce, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof 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 financialinformation 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 officer and I are responsible forestablishing 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 ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) [Intentionally Omitted.] 

 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand 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 

 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting 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. 

 

March 16, 2004 

By: /s/ Jordan M. Copland

Jordan M. Copland 

Chief Financial Officer
#### § 70.25-1 Electrical engineering details.

All electrical engineering details and installations shall be designed and installed in accordance with subchapter J (Electrical Engineering) of this chapter.
#### § 1220.4 Companies going out of business.

The records referred to in these regulations may be destroyed after business is discontinued and the company is completely liquidated. The records may not be destroyed until dissolution is final and all pending transactions and claims are completed. When a company is merged with another company under jurisdiction of the Board, the successor company shall preserve records of the merged company in accordance with these regulations.