alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 14,313.

#### TYRELL'S HEIRS v. ROUNTREE et al.

[1 McLean. 95.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Tennessee.

Sept. Term, 1830.2

Attachment — Sale — Counties — Division of County — Effect of on Lien.

1. An attachment being levied on land fixes a lien from the time of the levy, and a sale by the sheriff of the land, under a judgment on the attachment. has relation to the time of the levy of the attachment.

2. Under these circumstances a division of the county which throws a part of the land in the new county, being made subsequent to the levy of the attachment and before the sale by the sheriff, will not affect the lien, or oust the jurisdiction of the court.

[This was an action at law by William Tyrell’s heirs against Andrew Rountree and others.)

Mr. Washington, for plaintiffs.

Mr. Yergnr, • for defendants.

2

 [Affirmed by the supreme court in 7 Pet. (32 ü. S.) 464.]

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

This action of ejectment was brought by the lessors of the plaintiff to recover possession of a cer*479tain tract of land, the title of which was proved to have been in their ancestor. The •defendants set up a title by a sale made by the sheriff of Williamson county under a judgment rendered on an attachment. The attachment was levied the 13th February, 1807; the defendants did not appear and judgment was entered against them by default. The land was sold on execution the 2nd January, 1808. It was then proved by the plaintiffs that Williamson county was divided the 16th November, 1807, and that a part of the land was included in the new county called Maury. They therefore moved the court to instruct the jury that the sheriff’s sale was void for so much of the land as lies in the new county. But the court instructed the jury, that the sale of the sheriff had relation to the time of the levy by the attachment. That from this time there was a lien on the land, and it was in the custody of the law subject to the satisfaction of the judgment which should be rendered on the attachment. And that a division of the county could not affect the lien, or oust the jurisdiction of the court. That the lien being fixed, by the levy of the attachment, the court could consummate the proceedings by a sale of the land, as if no division of the county had been made. The jury under this instruction found a verdict of not guilty, on which a judgment was entered.

The plaintiffs removed this ease by a writ of error to the supreme court, which affirmed the judgment 7 Pet. [32 U. S.] 464.
Exhibit 31.1—Section 302 CertificationI, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that:I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year covered by thisannual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 2005-66;1. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; 2. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports; 3. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trusteeunder the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and theannual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;and 4. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trusteeand the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the reportprovided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with theUniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included in these reports.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A.Date: March 24, 2006   By: /s/ Ellen Z. LamaleName:
(Reap. Dec. 11105)

#### Naftone International Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 817698.

(Decided November 18, 1965)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Judge:

The following appeal for reappraisement is before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise the subject of this appeal for reappraisement is described as Magneton Tape PEG 505, which is composed of a Mylar base and an iron oxide coating wound on reels with ring covers and that said merchandise is not on the Final List of items (T.D. 54521) from which the action of the Customs Simplification Act of 1966 is withheld.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that such or similar merchandise was not freely sold or offered for sale for exportation to the United States at or about the time of exportation of the merchandise undergoing ap-praisement and that the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing appraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold, or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal market of the United States for domestic consumption, packed ready for delivery, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade with allowances made for the addition for profit and general expenses usually made in connection with sales in such market of imported merchandise of the same class or kind as the merchandise undergoing appraisement and with allowances for the usual costs of transportation and insurance and other usual expenses incurred with respect to such or similar merchandise from the place of shipment to the place of delivery (not including the addition for profit and general expenses) and with allowances made for the ordinary customs duties payable on such or similar merchandise by reason of its importation was $9.25 per roll net packed, including the cost of the reels and rings.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that said appeal be submitted on this stipulation being limited to the merchandise described as Magne-ton Tape PEG 505.

The stipulated facts establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise, as hereinabove identified, is United States value, *693as defined in section 402(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value therefor is $9.25 per roll, net packed, including the cost of the reels and rings.

As to all other merchandise included on the invoice covered by the entry involved herein, the appeal for reappraisement is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
A89A2148.

#### HAN v. TREND MANAGEMENT GROUP et al.

(391 SE2d 142)

Decided January 18, 1990.

*John G. Hunter,*for appellant.

*Hunter, Maclean, Exley & Dunn, Arnold C. Young, M. Carol Branham,*for appellees.

Carley, Chief Judge.

Appellee-defendants initiated dispossessory proceedings against appellant-plaintiff. When appellant did not answer or open the default, a writ of possession was issued and his possessions were removed from the premises. Subsequently, appellant filed this action against appellees, alleging claims for the “wrongful” removal of his possessions, trespass, slander, and misuse of legal process. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees and appellant appeals.

A review of the record clearly shows that this action constitutes no more than appellant’s unauthorized collateral attack upon the validity of the judgment in the underlying dispossessory proceedings. See *Matthews Group & Assoc. v. Wages,*180 Ga. App. 151, 152 (2) (348 SE2d 695) (1986). The trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of appellees.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.*
Before the Third Division,

September 9, 1952

No. 56850.

#### Leon Marks *v.*United States,

protests 159449-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the

merchandise consists of earthenware teapots and coffeepots each encased in a metal felt-lined cozy, the same in all material respects as the merchandise the subject of *Leon Marks*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 98, C. D. 1393), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[111th Congress Public Law 77]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 123 STAT. 2084]]

Public Law 111-77
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the Federal building located at 844 North Rush Street in 
        Chicago, Illinois, as the ``William O. Lipinski Federal 
           Building''. <<NOTE: Oct. 19, 2009 -  [H.R. 2498]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 844 North Rush Street in Chicago, 
Illinois, shall be known and designated as the ``William O. Lipinski 
Federal Building''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``William O. Lipinski 
Federal Building''.

    Approved October 19, 2009.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2498:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 111-213 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
            Sept. 9, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 24, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Before the Third Division,

July 18, 1946

No. 51248.

#### Protest 83707-K of Jack Finkelstein (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consist of mushroom flour the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Martel Food Corp.*v. *United States*(15 Cust. Ct. 109, C. D. 954). In accordance therewith the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 775 was sustained.
No. 57846.

protests 192243-K, etc. (New York).

#### General Materials Co. and Schmidt Pritchard & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*406Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of aluminum rods similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Mohawk Iron & Steel Co.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 274, C. D. 1533), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 21.01

                      SUBSIDIARIES OF CSK AUTO CORPORATION

                                 Jurisdiction of
Name                              Incorporation        Also Does Business As
----                             ---------------       ---------------------
Subsidiaries of Registrant:
CSK Auto, Inc. ................     Arizona            Checker Auto Parts,
                                                       Kragen Auto Parts,
                                                       Schuck's Auto Supply

Subsidiaries of CSK Auto, Inc.:
Kragen Auto Supply Co.*........     California         N/A
Schuck's Distribution Co.*.....     Washington         Schuck's Auto Supply
TRK Social, Inc.*..............     Delaware           Kragen Auto Parts

----------
* Merged into CSK Auto Corporation on April 8, 1998.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         110,152
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  371,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (35,458)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               934,102
<PP&E>                                       1,224,774
<DEPRECIATION>                               (600,731)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,386,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          934,102
<BONDS>                                      3,193,615
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,067
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,521,433)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,386,331
<SALES>                                     15,890,624
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,890,624
<CGS>                                       14,487,242
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,402,618
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               787,890
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (35,458)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (378,197)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,590,063)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,637
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,604,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,604,700)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)




</TABLE>
March 4, 1953

No. 57130.

protest 173282-K.

#### American Express Company and Flanary Sausage Company *v.*United States,

Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc.
 DATE:  December 6, 2006
    By:
    /s/ Byron L. BergrenByron L. BergrenPresident and Chief
Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ Keith E. PlowmanKeith E. PlowmanExecutive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer
No. 59394.

protests 129812-K, etc. (New York).

#### Asche Bandor Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 394 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 394

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make technical corrections in 
                       the enrollment of S. 1374.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 394

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill (S. 1374) to authorize the 
development and maintenance of a multiagency campus project in the town 
of Jackson, Wyoming, the Secretary of the Senate shall make the 
following corrections:
            (1) In section 1, strike ``1999'' and insert ``2000''.
            (2) In section 5(a), strike ``section 3'' and insert 
        ``section 4''.
            (3) In section 7(a)(1), strike ``memorandum of agreement 
        referred to in section 4(a)(1)(A)'' and insert ``memorandum of 
        understanding referred to in section 4(a)(1)(B)''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 12, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

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

|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of China Health Care
      Corporation for the year ended May 31, 2008(the "Report") fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of China Health Care Corporation.                                                        

Dated: August 29, 2008

| | /s/ Henry J. Macfarland      
| | -----------------------------
| | Henry J. Macfarland          
| | Chief Executive Officer      
| | (Principal Executive Officer)
| | China Health Care Corporation



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

---
IB

Union Calendar No. 61

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 44

[Report No. 106–115]

Declaring a state of war between the United States and the Government

of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 12, 1999

Mr. CAMPBELL introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on International Relations

APRIL 27, 1999

Additional sponsors: Mr. GOODLING and Mr. BARR of Georgia

APRIL 27, 1999

Reported adversely from the Committee on International Relations, committed

to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and

ordered to be printed

JOINT RESOLUTION

Declaring a state of war between the United States and

the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That pursuant to section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolu4 tion (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)), and article 1, section 8 of the
2

•HJ 44 RH

1 United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to

2 exist between the United States and the Government of

3 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Union Calendar No. 61

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 44

[Report No. 106–115]

JOINT RESOLUTION

Declaring a state of war between the United States

Yugoslavia.and the Government of the Federal Republic of

APRIL 27, 1999

Reported adversely from the Committee on International

printedHouse on the State of the Union, and ordered to beRelations, committed to the Committee of the Whole
No. 68591.

Appeal 5129.

#### Bird Machine Company *v.*United States.

C.D. 2363 affirmed January 23, 1964. C.A.D. 835.
No. 66667.

#### Reese Finer Foods, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 61/2133-11685 and 61/2143-11695 (Chicago).

*406Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking*& *Importing Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00561

- CR
Miguel Benavidez v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 148th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 11

- 1796

- E

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cau se on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. June 13, 2019
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

August 29, 2003

Stephen C. Farrell
8 Minute Man Lane
Lexington, MA   02421

                      Re: Amendment of Employment Agreement
Dear Steve,

This letter agreement serves to further amend the Employment Agreement dated as
of September 1, 2000, by and between you and PolyMedica Corporation (the
"Company"), as amended by certain letter agreements dated as of April 16, 2001;
September 24, 2001; October 12, 2001; May 31, 2002; July 15, 2002 and February
5, 2003 (together, the "Employment Agreement").

         Term of Employment. The Employment Period, as defined in Section 2 of
         the Employment Agreement, is extended to August 31, 2004.

If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please indicate your agreement by signing
a copy of this letter agreement and returning it to the undersigned.

                                              Very truly yours,

                                              /s/ Samuel L. Shanaman
                                              ----------------------
                                              Samuel L. Shanaman
                                              Lead Director and
                                              Interim Chief Executive Officer

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

/s/ Stephen C. Farrell
----------------------
Stephen C. Farrell
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 351

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing Heroes Plaza in the City of Pueblo,

Colorado, as honoring recipients of the Medal ofHonor.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 351

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the Medal of Honor was established by Congress in

1862 and is the highest military declaration bestowed by

the Nation;

Whereas the criteria for receiving the Medal of Honor are extraordinarily stringent, requiring that an individual, while

a member of the Armed Forces, have ‘‘distinguish[ed]

himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the
2

•HCON 351 EH

risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty’’ while

engaged in combat and that there have been at least two

eyewitnesses to the act;

Whereas fewer than 155 of the approximately 3,500 Americans who have been awarded the Medal of Honor are

alive, including two who are natives of the City of Pueblo,

Colorado;

Whereas the City of Pueblo, Colorado, will be the site for the

September 2000 reunion of living recipients of the Medal

of Honor; and

Whereas during that reunion, a Medal of Honor memorial, to

be known as ‘‘Heroes Plaza’’, will be dedicated: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Heroes Plaza in the City of Pueblo, Col3 orado, is recognized, effective as of the September 2000

4 reunion of living Medal of Honor recipients in that city,

5 as honoring the recipients of the Medal of Honor and hon6 oring their commitment to the United States and to serv7 ing in the Armed Forces with courage, valor, and patriot8 ism.

Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 2000.

Attest:

Clerk.