alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George E. Downing *v.*Bert Burnham, et al.

November Term, 1910.

Present: Rowell, C. J., Munson, Wat3on, Haselton, and Powers, JJ.

Opinion filed January 16, 1911.

*Pleading*— Amendment *of Declaration*— Striking *out*Counts— *Changing Cause of Action.*

The rule forbidding an amendment that changes the cause of action cannot preclude a plaintiff from perfecting his declaration by abandoning counts for a cause of action different from that relied on in the remaining count; and, therefore, where a declaration consisted of a count in trespass *guare clausum,*a count in trespass *de bonis*for the removal of timber, and a count in trover for a conversion thereof, the court properly allowed plaintiff to amend by striking out the last two counts, regardless of whether the causes of action relied upon in the several counts were different.

Trespass *guare clausum,*with a count in trespass *de bonis*and a count in trover. Heard on plaintiff’s motion to amend his declaration by striking out the last two counts, at the September Term, 1910, Washington County, *Hall,*J., presiding. Motion granted, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, to which the defendant excepted.

*F. G. Fleetwood, M. G. Morse, A. D. Kimball,*and *Senter & Senter*for the defendants.

*B. E. Bullard*for the plaintiff.

The amendment was properly granted, regardless of whether the several counts are for the same cause of action. *Moses*v. *Taylor,*6 Macay, (D. C. ) 225; *Weireck*v. *Hoover,*8 Blackf. (Ind.) 379; *Lidden*v. *Hodnett,*22 Fla. 271; *Veedor*v. *Cooley, 4*Thomp. *&*Co. 245.

Munson, J,

The declaration contained counts in trespass *guare clausum,*alleging the cutting and removal of trees and *150growing timber; a count in trespass *de bonis,*alleging the removal of saw-logs, wood and timber; and a count in trover, alleging a conversion of like property. When the case was reached for trial, plaintiff moved to amend by striking out the last two counts, and the defendants objected, for that the counts of' trespass on the freehold and the count in trover were not and could not be for the same cause of action, and so were improperly joined, and that consequently the declaration could not be amended as proposed without changing the cause of action.

The question presented is purely one of pleading, no jurisdictional question being involved. It is not necessary to inquire whether the counts are for different causes of action; for the striking out of one of two counts, whether it be for a separate cause of action or not, does not change the cause of action set up in the other count; and we think the rule forbidding an amendment which changes the cause of action can not preclude a plaintiff from perfecting his declaration by abandoning a count for a different cause of action, which has been mistakenly added. The amendment was properly allowed. Chitty *206; Gould, Ch. 4, §101; See *Abbott*v. *Keith,*11 Vt. 525; *Haskell*v. *Bowen,*44 Vt. 579; *Rowley*v. *Shepardson,*83 Vt. 167; *Sawyer*v. *Childs,*83 Vt. 329.

*Judgment affirmed and cause remanded for the assessment of- damages.*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10603

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DARRYL RAY NEWTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:94-CR-71-2-A)

- - - - - - - - - -

November 29, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Darryl Ray Newton appeals the revocation

of his supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). Newton

admitted that he had violated the terms and conditions of his

supervised release by using drugs, and his urinalysis test was

positive for drugs. He was therefore subject to the mandatory

revocation provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). See United States v.

Smith, 978 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court noted

Newton’s participation in drug treatment programs but found that

his response to those programs was not favorable. See 18 U.S.C.
2

§ 3583(d). The district court did not abuse its discretion in

revoking Newton’s supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); see

United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

PHILLIP STEVE STAVRAKIS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-251

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 20, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas

County; Nancy Moate Ley, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Siobhan Helene Shea, Special 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow,

for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Timothy A. Freeland,

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa,

for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0857.html[7/21/2015 4:45:08 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-gfjx

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0857

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I am smart enough to handle my own retirement! Keep your hands off you've done enough damagef
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0599.html[7/21/2015 6:36:35 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-ghpb

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0599

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I am able to handle my retirement money by myself. I will vote for the opponent of anyone who tries to take it

 over.
###### Editorial Note on Part 193

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 193 appear at 71 FR 33408, June 9, 2006.

#### § 193.2609 Support systems.

Each support system or foundation of each component must be inspected for any detrimental change that could impair support.
§ 29.913 What is a claim under the Contract Disputes Act? A Contract Disputes Act claim is a written demand filed by a Tribe that seeks one or more of the following: ( a ) Payment of a specific sum of money under the funding agreement;
( b ) Adjustment or interpretation of terms in a funding agreement;
( c ) Payment that is disputed as to liability or amount;
( d ) Payment that the Department has not acted upon in a reasonable time following a demand for payment; or
( e ) Any other claim relating to the terms of the compact or funding agreement.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
Century Properties Fund XVIII 1998 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is 
qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000704271
<NAME> CENTURY PROPERTIES FUND XVIII
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998   
<CASH>                                           2,092
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          27,107
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,298)   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,080   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         19,509     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0     
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        (22)    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,080    
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,638    
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,271    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,082    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       367     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.41<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.3**
**CEO CERTIFICATION**
         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), W. Douglas Parker, the Chief Executive Officerof America West Airlines, Inc. (the ***“Company”***) hereby certifies that, to thebest of his knowledge:
**1.**     The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September30, 2002, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.3 (the***“Periodic Report”***) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) orsection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
**2.     **     The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
         **In Witness Whereof,**the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 17thday of October, 2002.     /s/ W. Douglas Parker
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CHIRON CORPORATION**

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION**

In connection withthe periodic report of**CHIRON CORPORATION, aDelaware corporation** (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I,**DAVID V. SMITH,Chief Financial Officer** of the Company, hereby certify as of thedate hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 ofthe United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)         the Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

(2)         the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

ThisCertification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with theSecurities and Exchange Commission.
| Date: August 4, 2005 | By:          | /s/ DAVID V. SMITH                                |
|---------------------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------|
| ** **                | ** **   | **DAVID V. SMITH**                                |
| *** ***              | *** *** | ***Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer*** |

 

----
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 7, 2007, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership.  The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recover of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.  Specifically, K12, Inc., Herndon, VA has been added as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project.  Membership in this group research project remains open, and IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On April 7, 2000, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act.  The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55283).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 15, 2007.  A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on July 24, 2007 (72 FR 40331).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 07-4439 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 886

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude unemployment

compensation from gross income.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 6, 2001

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude

unemployment compensation from gross income.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSA4 TION FROM GROSS INCOME.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part II of subchapter B of chap6 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to

7 items specifically included in gross income) is amended by

8 striking section 85.

9 (b) CONFORMING AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—
2

•HR 886 IH

1 (1) Section 3402(p) of such Code is amended

2 by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating para3 graph (3) as paragraph (2).

4 (2) Such Code is amended by striking section

5 6050B and by striking the item relating to that sec6 tion in the table of sections for subpart B of part

7 III of subchapter A of chapter 61.

8 (3) The table of sections for part II of sub9 chapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by

10 striking the item relating to section 85.

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

12 this Act shall apply to payments of unemployment com13 pensation made after December 31, 2001, in taxable years

14 ending after such date.

Æ
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

Created by Section 906

of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

The undersigned officer of FileNet Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

 (i)          the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal period ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 

Dated:  May 8, 2006
| */s/ Sam M. Auriemma*** |
|-------------------------|

Sam M. Auriemma

Executive Vice President

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
```

[House Document 109-74]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

109th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 
109-74
 
     CERTIFICATION FOR AN EXPORT TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

                               __________

                             COMMUNICATION

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

CERTIFICATION THAT THE EXPORT TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA OF THE 
 SPECIFIED ITEMS IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE UNITED STATES SPACE LAUNCH 
 INDUSTRY, AND THAT THE MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING ANY INDIRECT 
  TECHNICAL BENEFIT THAT COULD BE DERIVED FROM SUCH EXPORTS, WILL NOT 
  MEASURABLY IMPROVE THE MISSILE OR SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES OF THE 
   PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, PURSUANT TO PUB. L. 105-261, SEC. 1512

    December 16, 2005.--Referred to the Committee on International 
                  Relations and ordered to be printed
To The Congress of the United States:
    In accordance with the provisions of section 1512 of the 
Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261), I hereby certify that the 
export of 36 accelerometers to the People's Republic of China's 
Ministry of Railways, for use in a railroad track geometry 
measuring system, is not detrimental to the U.S. space launch 
industry, and that the material and equipment, including any 
indirect technical benefit that could be derived from such 
export, will not measurably improve the missile or space launch 
capabilities of the People's Republic of China.

                                                    George W. Bush.
    The White House, December 14, 2005.

                                  

```
*Pursuant to 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 06-10005 Non-Argument Calendar

_______________________ In The Matter Of: JOHN C. BAUM; LINDA D. BAUM Debtors.

_______________________________ JOHN C. BAUM; LINDA D. BAUM, Appellants,
versus FIRST COLEMAN NATIONAL BANK, Appellee.

__________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (USDC No. 6:05-CV-35-SRC)

__________________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *47.5.4. 2

The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s finding that First Coleman National Bank (the “Bank”) held valid liens against the Baums’ property and lawfully foreclosed its deed of trust, despite the homestead character of the property. The Baums appeal. We affirm for the following reasons: 1. The Bank’s deed of trust secured a purchase money lien and a mechanic’s lien that the Bank obtained from the Allens and Signature Building, respectively, in consideration for proceeds from the Bank’s loan to the Baums. 2. Purchase money and improvement indebtedness fall outside the homestead protection. TEX. CONST. art. XVI, § 50(a). 3. That a deed of trust secures more debt than may be executed against a piece of property does not impair a trustee’s sale under the deed of trust. Gregory v. Sunbelt Sav., F.S.B. , 835 S.W.2d 155, 160 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, writ denied). 4. To the extent the Baums’ brief can be read to raise any other arguments, such arguments are waived for failure to present them to the bankruptcy court, see In re Fairchild Aircraft Corp ., 6 F.3d 1119, 1128 (5th Cir. 1993), or for inadequate briefing, see L & A Contracting Co. v. Southern Concrete Servs
. Inc. , 17 F.3d 106, 113 (5th Cir. 1994).3

AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 325
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 325 appear at 66 FR 49869, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 325.93 Tires. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a motor vehicle does not conform to the visual tire inspection requirements, 40 CFR 202.23, of the Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emissions Standards, if inspection of any tire on which the vehicle is operating discloses that the tire has a tread pattern composed primarily of cavities in the tread (excluding sipes and local chunking) which are not vented by grooves to the tire shoulder or circumferentially to each other around the tire.
( b ) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to a motor vehicle operated on a tire having a tread pattern of the type specified in that paragraph, if the motor carrier who operates the motor vehicle demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator or his/her designee that either— ( 1 ) The tire did not have that type of tread pattern when it was originally manufactured or newly remanufactured; or
( 2 ) The motor vehicle generates a maximum sound level reading of 90 dB(A) or less when measured at a standard test site for highway operations at a distance of 15.3 meters (50 feet) and under the following conditions: ( i ) The measurement must be made at a time and place and under conditions specified by the Administrator or his/her designee.
( ii ) The motor vehicle must be operated on the same tires that were installed on it when the inspection specified in paragraph (a) of this section occurred.
( iii ) The motor vehicle must be operated on a highway having a posted speed limit of more than 56.3 kph (35 mph).
( iv ) The sound level measurement must be made while the motor vehicle is operating at the posted speed limit.
[40 FR 42437, Sept. 12, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 38743, July 28, 1995; 66 FR 49869, Oct. 1, 2001]