alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 9,760.

#### MOORE et al. v. FOSTER et al.

[Chase, 222.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Virginia.

May Term, 1868.

Rebellion — Note Drawn within Confedérate States — Accepted in Satisfaction of Debt.

1. Any draft, bill, or note drawn in the Confederate States, or in any state, under the proc: lamation of the president declared in insurrection, or in any part of them (except such part as was permanently and absolutely under the control of the forces of the United States), upon ay person or persons in the Federal lines, was absolutely void as to the maker and all other parties thereto, and was not to be received in payment or satisfaction of any debt due to a citizen of a state adhering to the government.

2. When such a draft has been received, the jury must be satisfied upon good evidence that it was accepted in satisfaction of the debt.

In 1860, Foster & Moore of Norfolk, owed Moore & Brother of Baltimore, nine hundred and twenty dollars, due by negotiable notes, which fell due during the occupation of Norfolk by the Confederate army. After the evacuation of that city, Moore & Brother came to Norfolk, and Foster & Moore agreed to pay the amount of their liabilities to them in Virginia money, i. e., the bills of Virginia banks. Foster & Moore then bought a draft for one thousand dollars, drawn by the Bank of Windsor, N. C., on the Bank of Portsmouth, Va. This draft was endorsed by Maury & Co., Smith of Norfolk, and other responsible parties, and made payable to the order of Moore & Brother, to whom it was sent They neglected to have the draft presented, and some two months afterward the Bank of Portsmouth ran its assets into the Confederate lines. They held the draft until 1867, and it was. never paid. Under these circumstances, Moore & Brother brought suit upon the original., notes, and tendered the draft back to Foster & Moore, who refused to receive it.

Gilmer & Son, for plaintiffs.

Mr. Guigon and John Howard, for defendants.

1

 [Reported by Bradley T. Johnson, Esq., and here reprinted by permission.]

CHASE, Circuit Justice,

instructed the jury as follows: 1st. That any draft, bill, or note drawn in the Confederate States, or in any state under the proclamation of the president declared in insurrection, or in any part of them (except such part as was permanently and absolutely under the control of the forces of the United States), upon any person or persons in the Federal lines, was void as to the maker and all other parties thereto, and was not to be received in payment of any debt when due to a citizen of any state adhering to the government; but there being a question as to whether the Bank of Windsor was, at the time this draft was drawn, in the Federal or Confederate lines, that question was for the jury to determine. 2nd. That the jury must be satisfied that the plaintiffs accepted this draft in satisfaction of the debt due them, upon good evidence.

The jury failed to agree.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

December 23, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00690

- CV

Steven M. GARY

, Appellant

v.

Mary ROMAN

, e t al., Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 01986 Honorable Laura Salinas , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

We order that appellees Mary Roman, et al. recover their costs of appeal, if any, from appellant Steven M. Gary

.

It is so ORDERED on December 23, 2015

.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 23rd day of December, 2015

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

The undersigned herebycertifies, in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of American Bank NoteHolographics, Inc. (the “Company”), that the Quarterly Report of theCompany on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company atthe end of the period covered by the Report and the results of operations ofthe Company for the period covered by the Report.

 

 
|   | By: /s/ Mark J. Bonney                                |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Mark J. Bonney                                        |
|   | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and |
|   | Chief Accounting Officer                              |

 

Date:  August 15, 2005

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to AmericanBank Note Holographics, Inc. and will be retained by American Bank NoteHolographics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-8468 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-208-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Revise Maintence 

Program 1.0 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 23 $2,210.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $2,210

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A0 46 5 . EDW ARD EARL BOW EN et a l . v . PARI SA, LLC.

Th i s cas e b eg an as a di s p o s s es s o ry p ro ceed i n g i n m ag i s t rat e co u rt

. Fo l l o wi n g

an ad vers e ru li n g , o n e or m o re d efen d an t s ap p eal ed to t h e s u p eri o r co u rt
, wh i ch
d i s m i s s ed t h e ap p eal

. Defe nda nt Ed ward Bo wen t h en ap p eal ed d irect l y t o th i s Co u rt

. 1

W e l ack ju ri sd ict i o n

. Ap p eal s fro m s u peri o r co u rt d eci s i o n s rev i ewi n g lo wer co u rt d eci s i o n s by

cert i o r a r i o r d e n o v o p ro ceed i n g s m u st b e in i t i at ed b y fi l i ng an ap pl i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap peal

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 ), (b ); Bu l l o ck v. Sa n d

, 2 6 0 Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 4,
8 7 5 (5 8 1 SE2 d 3 3 3 ) (2 00 3 ). “ Co m p l ian ce wi t h t h e d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal s p ro ced u re i s ju ri s d i ct i o n al .” S

mo a k v. Dep t

. of Hu ma n Res o u rces , 2 2 1 Ga. Ap p

. 2 5 7
, 2 5 7 (4 7 1
SE2 d 60 ) (1 9 9 6 ). Bo wen ’ s fai l u re t o fo l lo w t h e p ro p er p ro ced u re d ep ri v es u s o f ju ri s d i ct i o n ov er th i s ap p eal

, wh i ch i s h e r e b y DI S M I SSED. See Bu l l o ck

, 2 6 0 Ga. Ap p . at 8 7 5

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia
C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

.

1 Bo w en , a n o n -l awy er, i s t h e o n l y d efen d an t wh o si gn ed t h e n o t i ce of ap p eal

. He t h u s i s th e so l e ap p el lan t b ecau s e, as a n o n -at t o rn ey , he m ay n o t fi l e an ap p eal o n b eh al f o f an y o t h er p art i es

. See An i eb u e v. Ja g u ar Cr ed i t Co rp

. , 3 0 8 Ga. A p p

. 1

, 1,

n . 1 (7 0 8 SE2 d 4 ) (2 0 1 1 ). October 17, 2018

10/17/2018
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-16-00033-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST 

AND PROTECTION OF H.S.

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. M-11179

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

H.S. appeals from an April 14, 2016, order authorizing the administration of psychoactive 

medication.1 H.S.’s notice of appeal was filed April 15, 2016, the reporter’s record was filed April 

22, 2016, and the clerk’s record was filed April 27, 2016. The Texas Health and Safety Code 

requires that mental health commitment appeals be given absolute priority over all other cases and 

authorizes this Court to adjust the briefing deadlines and docketing timetables to achieve that end. 

See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.070(e) (West 2010).

Due to the accelerated nature of this appeal, we establish the following briefing schedule 

for this matter: (1) the appellant’s brief to be received by this Court on or before May 9, 2016, 

and (2) the appellee’s brief to be received by this Court on or before May 19, 2016. See TEX. 

HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.070(e). No extensions of time will be granted.

The parties are further notified that, pursuant to Section 574.070(e) of the Texas Health 

and Safety Code, the case will be submitted, without oral argument, to the panel of Chief Justice 

Josh R. Morriss, III, Justice Bailey C. Moseley, and Justice Ralph K. Burgess one day after the 

appellee’s brief is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: April 27, 2016

 

1H.S. appeals from a contemporaneously entered order committing H.S. to a state mental health facility for extended 

in-patient mental health services not to exceed twelve months under our cause number 06-16-00019-CV.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004



The undersigned executive officers of the Registrant hereby certify that this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



By:

/s/ Gary C. LoraditchName:

Gary C. LoraditchTitle:

PresidentBy:

/s/ Bonnie M. KleinName:

Bonnie M. KleinTitle:

Vice President and Treasurer




Date: February 13, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME, CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           7,209
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,766
<ALLOWANCES>                                       800
<INVENTORY>                                     36,121
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,379
<PP&E>                                          66,471
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,470
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 158,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,138
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,052
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,532
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   158,254
<SALES>                                        152,879
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               183,029
<CGS>                                           91,410
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  111,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    73
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,175
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,333
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,874
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,459
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.62
        

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 11007)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 9269-H.

(Decided June 10, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> *7051. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a landing of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.O., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (See. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as 'specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2024 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2023-11	&"Arial,Bold"VII VSR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"September 2023
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

1

 Defendants’ objections are accompanied by a request to file said objections one day

late. The objections were, however, timely filed. The request is therefore denied as unnecessary.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY ROY KEATON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0697 GEB JFM P

vs.

SERGEANT CAROLL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On February 10, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On

February 22, 2006, defendants timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 53 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 10, 2006 are adopted in full;

2. This court’s September 28, 2005 order dismissing defendant Carver is vacated;

3. Defendants’ April 22, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in

part, as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of excessive force

against defendants Roszko, Carver, Hurtado and Koualczuk is denied;

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim against defendants

Moreno and Jones is granted due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies with

respect to any claim against said defendants;

c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim against defendants

Sahota, Blackford and Van Huesen arising out of the alleged denial of food and water between

November 12, 2003 and November 17, 2003 is granted due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

administrative remedies with respect to said claim; and

4. Defendants shall answer the exhausted claims in plaintiff’s complaint within

twenty days from the date of this order.

Dated: March 21, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 53 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 8618)

Entry Nos. 9797; 8063.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L. A. *v.*United States

(Decided June 29, 1956)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff. <

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon a stipulation of fact entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

On the agreed facts I find the proper values of the involved merchandise to be as follows:

As to the merchandise covered by reappraisement 254761-A, the appraised value, less the shipping charges of rupees 210.

As to the merchandise covered by reappraisement 254762-A, the appraised value, less the railway freight charges of rupees 206.14.0. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 8654)

Entry No. 894931, etc.

#### Alltransport, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided September 19, 1956)

*Eugene R. Pickrell*for the plaintiff. •

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> *512IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule A hereto attached and made a part hereof consist of Thiourea imported from Germany, which merchandise was appraised on a foreign value, as defined under the provisions of Section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, at DM 3.65 per kilo, plus packing.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the correct foreign value of the said merchandise, as defined under the provisions of Section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is DM 3.65 per kilo, net weight packed, and that there was no export value for the merchandise such as or similar to the Thiourea herein imported at the time of exportation thereof, and

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement are abandoned as to any other merchandise listed on the invoices, and that these appeals may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the thiourea here involved, and that such value was DM 3.65 per kilo, net weight packed.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 60030.

#### Anco Import Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 263600-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “B” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52836), for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letter “C” at 30 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 51898), for imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted.