alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles L. Cummings et al. *vs.*Gerrish Murchison et al.

Penobscot.

Decided April 1, 1940.

*Fellows & Fellows,*for plaintiffs.

*E. A. Atherton, C. J. O’Leary,*for defendants.

Real action certified on report on an agreed statement of facts by consent of the parties.

The case shows that on August 26, 1930, Charles L. Cummings of Lincoln, Maine, gave to his wife, Carrie M. Cummings, certain real estate in Lincoln of which he was then seized. The conveyance was made by a warranty deed in the usual form containing, after a description of the real estate, the following provision:

> “It is agreed and understood that any of the above property that may belong to said Carrie M. Cummings at the time of her death shall go to the children of the said Charles L. Cummings. This property is not to be sold by Mrs. Carrie M. Cummings.”

Both the grantor and grantee in this deed are now dead. The children of Charles L. Cummings demand the premises conveyed by their father to his wife under the provision of his deed that on her death the property should go to them. The defendants are in possession of the property as tenants of the sole heir of the wife. The issue is whether the demandants have the better title to the lands in controversy upon a proper construction of the grantor’s deed.

The majority of the Court are of the opinion that the defendants must prevail. The deed before the Court falls within the rule that a grantor cannot destroy his own grant, and having once granted an estate in his deed, no subsequent clause, even in the deed itself, can operate to nullify it. This rule has been recently restated in *Inhabitants of Canton*v. *Trust Company,*136 Me., 103, 106, 3 A., 2d., 429; See *Shepherd Company*v. *Shibles,*100 Me., 314, 61 A., 700; *Maker*v. *Lazell,*83 Me., 562, 22 A., 474.

The case must be remanded to the Trial Court in which the report originated for entry of judgment for the defendants. So ordered.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

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

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

June 25, 2013

s0617 

# Order

Clerk June 25, 2013

146625

DAVID ROBINSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 146625

COA: 310250

Ingham CC: 11

- 001055

- AA

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND

REGULATORY AFFAIRS, and COMMISSION

FOR THE BLIND,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 26, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Lisa B. HOGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLSOUTH CORPORATION, Georgia corporation, Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc., Georgia corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-14475.

D.C. Docket No. 01-01322-CV-RWS-1.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 24, 2005.

Edmund J. Novotny, Jr., Office of Edmund J. Novotny, Charles Ronald Bridgers, Delong Caldwell Novotny & Bridgers, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert K. Haderlein, James H. Coil, III, Kilpatrick & Stockton, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BIRCH, CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the judgment in this case on the basis of the thorough and well-reasoned discussion of the issues in the January 28, 2004 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Gerrilyn Brill, as adopted and supplemented by the July 29, 2004 order of United States District Court Judge Richard W. Story.
# C_2020348EN.01002501.xml

| 19.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/25

---

Action brought on 26 August 2020 — Müller v EUIPO (TIER SHOP)

(Case T-535/20)

(2020/C 348/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Müller GmbH & Co. KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: S. Mühlberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark TIER SHOP — Application for registration No 18 022 495

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2020 in Case R 2600/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as the application for registration of EU figurative mark No 18 022 495 was rejected. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as the application for registration of EU figurative mark No 18 022 495 was rejected.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 31
                                                                    ----------



                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------


          I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

          1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports
          on Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in
          respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
          report, of CWMBS, Inc., CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2005-HYB4;

          2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as
          a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
          omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
          in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
          not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this
          annual report;

          3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the trustee by the master servicer under
          the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in
          these reports is included in these reports;

          4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          master servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar,
          agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
          review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
          reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
          that agreement; and

          5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
          master servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards
          based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,
          after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single
          Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as
          set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that
          is included in these reports.

          In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
          information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
          The Bank of New York, as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and
          National City Mortgage Company.


          Date: March 24, 2006


                                          /s/ Steve Bailey
                                          ----------------
                                          Steve Bailey
                                          Senior Managing Director
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Sandra Smith Brown, independent * From the 118th District Court

executrix of the Estate of R. J. Smith, Jr., of Glasscock County,

 Trial Court No. 1877

Vs. No. 11-20-00138-CV * May 26, 2022

William Charles Underwood, Jan Ann * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J. 

Underwood, and Rosanne Underwood (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Gerrard, Wright, S.C.J., and Marion, S.C.J.,

 sitting by assignment)

 (Trotter, J., and Williams, J.,

 not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by 

reason of this appeal are taxed against Sandra Smith Brown, independent executrix 

of the Estate of R. J. Smith, Jr.
No. P66/360.

#### Illfelder Importing Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 65/23513, etc. (New York).

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” covered by the foregoing protests consist of sirens similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Oxford International Corp.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 472, Abstract 69607), and that the items of merchandise marked “B” covered by the foregoing protests consist of rubber bulb horns similar in all material respects to those1 the subject of *Sherwin*International, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.
No. 62342.

#### Plus Computing Machines, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 317595-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” consist of key-driven calculating machines and parts thereof the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Plus Computing Machines, Inc.*v. *United States*(44 C. C. P. A. 160, C. A. D. 655), the claim at 12% percent under the provision in paragraph 372, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52763), for calculating machines specially constructed for multiplying and dividing and parts thereof was sustained as to said items. The items marked “B,” stipulated to be the same in all material respects as the merchandise the subject of C. A. D. 655, *supra,*except for having, in addition, an electric motor as an essential feature, were held dutiable at 12% percent under the provision in paragraph 353, as modified, *supra,*for calculating machines specially constructed for multiplying and dividing, having an electric motor as an essential feature and parts thereof.
# L_2008250EN.01S00301.xml

| 18.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 250/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 250/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 Exhibit: 10.15T

SECURITY INTEREST AGREEMENT (#18)                                  July 10, 1998

WHEREAS the Trudy Corp of 353 Main Avenue in Norwalk, Ct (hereafter "Trudy") is
seeking to pay $28,900.00 to upgrade its computer system, and

WHEREAS William W. Burnham (hereafter "Burnham") of White Oak Shade Road in New
Canaan, CT is willing to assist Trudy Corp by lending Trudy Corp $28,900.00
(twenty eight thousand nine hundred dollars and 00/100) to purchase the new
computer operating system.

NOW THEREFORE, Trudy Corp agrees to provide a security interest to Burnham in
recognition of the value he is providing the Company and the risks therein.

Trudy agrees to give Burnham a collateral interest in all Cash or Securities,
all Accounts Receivable both of Trudy and its subsidiary, Soundprints, all
inventory of whatever kind, and all furniture and fixtures. This security
interest shall be limited to the amount referred to above, plus imputed interest
of 8% per annum.

Burnham shall be entitled to perfect his security interest, if and when Trudy is
unable to repay this debt on its maturity; the entire $28,900.00 should be
repaid by July 10, 1999. In such circumstances, Burnham shall have a collateral
interest second only to that of First union (if any) and Alice Burnham, but in
any event senior to all trade creditors and to all other liabilities of the
Company unless otherwise stated or stipulated by legislation.

Both parties agree that there may be partial reductions under this agreement as
funds are repaid by Trudy to Burnham; the collateral interest shall be reduced
pro rata.

AGREED:  /s/ W. T. Carney                      ACCEPTED:  /s/ William W. Burnham
         ----------------------                           ----------------------
         William T. Carney                                William W. Burnham
         Vice President/ CFO for
         Trudy Corp

Dated:   July 10, 1998
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAURICE DERUFF POSEY, 

Defendant.

 

Case No. CR06-5456RBL 

 

INITIAL ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS

OF VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS

OF SUPERVISION BY UNITED

STATES PROBATION OFFICE

THIS MATTER comes on for hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation Office

alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Special/Assistant US Attorney, GREGORY GRUBER:

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, MICHAEL SCHWARTZ:

The U.S. Probation Office has filed a petition alleging violations of the terms and conditions of

supervision; the defendant has been advised of the allegation(s) and maximum potential sanction if

substantiated; and the court finding probable cause with regard to the alleged violation(s); 

The matter is scheduled for hearing before the Honorable RONALD B. LEIGHTON:

Date: FEBRUARY 7, 2012 

Time: 9:00 A.M.

( ) Defendant is released pending the above scheduled hearing.

( X ) Defendant is ordered detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any

other person or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

by the court for further proceedings. 

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office. This Order is entered

without prejudice to review.

January 27, 2012.

A J. Richard Creatura

United States Magistrate Judge
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22136]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 5, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 22, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 64 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-279, CP2023-282.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-22136 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 207 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 207

   Commemorating the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Vietnam 
                          Veterans of America.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 2, 1998

   Mr. Jeffords (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Leahy) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Commemorating the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Vietnam 
                          Veterans of America.

Whereas the year 1998 marks the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Vietnam 
        Veterans of America;
Whereas the history of the Vietnam Veterans of America organization is a story 
        of America's gradual recognition of the tremendous sacrifices of its 
        Vietnam-era veterans and their families;
Whereas the Vietnam Veterans of America is dedicated to serving its membership 
        through advocacy for its membership;
Whereas the Vietnam Veterans of America provides public and member awareness of 
        critical issues affecting Vietnam-era veterans and their families;
Whereas the local grassroots efforts of Vietnam Veterans of America chapters 
        like Chapter One in Rutland, Vermont, which was founded 18 years ago in 
        April 1980, have greatly contributed to the quality of lives of veterans 
        in our Nation's communities;
Whereas the Vietnam Veterans of America promotes its principles through 
        volunteerism, professional advocacy, and claims work; and
Whereas the future of the Vietnam Veterans of America relies not only on its 
        past accomplishments, but on future accomplishments of its membership 
        that will ensure the Vietnam Veterans of America remains a leader among 
        veterans advocacy organizations: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) commemorates the 20th anniversary of the founding of 
        the Vietnam Veterans of America and commends it for its 
        advancement of veterans rights which set the standard for other 
        veterans organizations around the country;
            (2) asks all Americans to join in the celebration of the 
        20th birthday of the Vietnam Veterans of America and 20 years 
        of advocacy for Vietnam veterans; and
            (3) encourages the Vietnam Veterans of America to continue 
        into the next millennium to represent and promote the goals of 
        its organization in the veterans community and on Capitol Hill, 
        and to continue organizing to keep its national membership of 
        51,000 members and 500 chapters strong.
                                 <all>
```
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

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sepracor Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Timothy J. Barberich, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

Date:
November 13, 2003

| |  | /s/TIMOTHY J. BARBERICHTimothy J. Barberich Chief Executive
Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 310 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 310

Authorizing the printing of background information on the Committee on 
                Foreign Relations as a Senate document.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             October 16 (legislative day, October 2), 1998

     Mr. Helms (for himself and Mr. Biden) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the printing of background information on the Committee on 
                Foreign Relations as a Senate document.

SECTION 1. PRINTING OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION RELATING TO THE HISTORY 
              OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN 
              RELATIONS.

    The Public Printer shall print--
            (1) as a Senate document a compilation of materials, with 
        illustrations, entitled ``Background Information on the 
        Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate (7th 
        Revised Edition)'';
            (2) in addition to the usual number, there shall be printed 
        500 copies of the document for the use of the committee; and
            (3) the cost for printing this document shall not exceed 
        $5,825.00.
                                 <all>
```
No. 60295.

protest 279939-K (Pembina).

#### Harry R. Woodward *v.*United States,

Donlon, Judge:

When this case was called on the calendar at Pembina, N. Dak., on June 19, 1956, plaintiff failed to appear, although due notice of the hearing had been timely mailed. The court then ordered the case submitted.

Plaintiff in this suit is, in fact, the State of South Dakota. The importation at issue was by Mr. Harry R. Woodward, in his official capacity as State Forester of the Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, of that State. Mr. Woodward’s protest to the collector of customs at Pembina, N. Dak., is that no duty whatsoever is payable on this entry.

States are not exempt from the payment of customs duties. The Supreme Court has so held. *Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois*v. *United States,*289 U. S. 48 (1933). While in that case, plaintiff was not the State, but a public corporation that is a State agency, the opinion of Chief Justice Hughes makes it clear that the decision rests on a broad interpretation of the exclusive authority granted by the Constitution to the Congress to regulate foreign commerce. That case construed the Tariff Act of 1922. The comparable language of the Tariff Act of 1930 allows no room to distinguish the case now before us.

If there is some other basis, in the language of the tariff act itself, on which this importation is claimed as duty free, the plaintiff has not made that basis known.

The protest is overruled.