alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 9,113.

#### MARSH v. CHARLESTON.

[1 Hughes. 288.] 1

Circuit Court, E. D. South Carolina.

1877.

CORPORATIONS — U.N'PAII) STOCK — CkEDITOH—STAT-UTORY Liability — Suit at Law — Joinder op Creditors.

Where the charter of a bank makes each stockholder liable to twice the amount of his shares for its debts, and a judgment creditor sues at law a single shareholder who owns nearly all the shares, and it does not appear from the complaint that there are any other creditors besides the complainant, *held,*on demurrer, that although the case might be different if there were more than this one creditor, yet, it not appearing that there were other creditors, the demurrer must be overruled.

[This was an action by Fennimore C. Marsh against the city council of Charleston. Heard on demurrer.]

Before WAITE, Circuit Justice, and BOND, Circuit Judge.

WAITE, Circuit Justice.

The plaintiff is a judgment creditor of the State Bank in the sum of $10,127.25, and the defendant a stockholder to the' amount of $39,800. The charter of the bank provides, that “in case of the failure of the bank, each stockholder .... shall be liable and held bound individually for any sum not exceeding twice the amount of his .... share or shares.” The bank has failed, and the plaintiff seeks in this action at law to charge the defendant, under this provision of the charter, with the payment of his judgment. It does not appear in the case as presented, that there are any other creditors of the bank or any other stockholders.

The defendant has demurred to the complaint, and, in support of his demurrer, contends that the individual liability of stock*805holders, as defined and created by this charter, cannot be enforced by one creditor for his own exclusive use to the injury of others.

If it anywhere appeared in -the complaint, either by direct averment or fair legal inference, that there were other creditors of the bank, and that the assets, including the liabilities of the stockholders, were not sufficient to pay all in full, we should .sustain the demurrer. In our opinion, it was not the intention of the legislature, by this provision, to create a liability to the separate creditors, which one could enforce to the injury of another. The undertaking assumed by the stockholders is not to pay debts, but to such sums, not exceeding the amounts of their respective shares, as should be necessary under the circumstances. Undoubtedly the object was to furnish the creditors with additional security, and to have the payments, when made, applied to the discharge of the debts. The obligation, too, is one that may be enforced by the creditors, but as it is to or for all the creditors, and not any one alone, it must, as we think, be enforced by or for all. The form of action employed, therefore, should he one adapted to the protection of all.

As it does not now appear that there is any creditor of the bank except the one who sues, we cannot say that this form of action is not adapted to the circumstances of this case. The demurrer is therefore overruled, with leave to the defendant to avail himself of his proposed defence by answer.
No. 63186.

#### Joseph F. Mariano *v.*United States,

protest 58/18466 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION****PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Joseph D. Perillo, certify that,

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 of Patriot National Bancorp, Inc.; and |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date: May 9, 2018 |   |   |   |   |   | /s/ Joseph D. Perillo                                       |
|------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |   |   |   |   | Joseph D. Perillo                                                          |
|                   |   |   |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer) |
II 

Calendar No. 567 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5019 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ‘‘United 

States Representative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. VAN HOLLEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

NOVEMBER 20, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, 

Maryland, as the ‘‘United States Representative Elijah 

E. Cummings Post Office Building’’. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 5019 RS

1 SECTION 1. UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE ELIJAH E. 

2 CUMMINGS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 340 South Loudon Avenue in 

5 Baltimore, Maryland, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘United States Representative Elijah E. Cummings 

7 Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘United States Rep12 resentative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Calendar No. 567 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5019 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBuilding’’. Representative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ‘‘United States al Service located at 340 South Loudon Avenue 

NOVEMBER 20, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 132680 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132680 COA: 273276 Otsego CC: 05-003388-FC OTHA RICHMOND CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 27, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0319 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 26, 2007

Clerk
#### People v Hales.

(Docket No. 60141.)

Cleveland Hales, *in propria persona,*appellant.

Request for appointment of counsel denied.

Case below, Court of Appeals No. 30060, order of February 18, 1977.
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June30, 2020 (the “Report”) of Oxford Square Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bruce L. Rubin, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ Bruce L. RubinName: Bruce L. RubinDate:July29, 2020
March 9, 1978

#### People *ex rel*Wayne Prosecutor v Recorder’s Court Judge. (In the Matter of Blount).

(Docket No. 60749.)

The Court of Appeals order of November 18, 1977 certifying a question to this Court under GCR 1963, 797.2(a) is considered and the request is denied as improper under that court rule. GCR 1963, 797.1 governs the procedure for certified questions "from Michigan courts”, and is therefore the subrule which would govern a certified question from the Michigan Court of Appeals. GCR 1963, 797.2(a) governs the procedure for certifying questions from courts other than Michigan courts. Since the Court of Appeals order is not accompanied by an "executive message of the Governor”, as required by subrule 797.1(a), we will not consider the request under that subrule. Case below, Court of Appeals Nos. 77-2474, 77-2475, order of November 18, 1977.
Before the Second Division,

April 27, 1949

No. 53078.

#### Abercrombie & Fitch Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 104531-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

By virtue of the decision in *United States*v. *American Viscose Corporation*(30 C. C. P. A. 240, C. A. D. 239), the protests were dismissed.
No. 65574.

#### American Bitumuls & Asphalt Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/15812 (Wilmington).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cutback asphalt the same in all material respects as that the subject of *American Bitumuls*& *Asphalt Co.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 1, C.D. 2188), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### In the Matter of Gershom A. Seixas.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Daniels, J.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-1112

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Timothy D. Sletten lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

____________ Submitted: May 24, 2024 Filed: June 21, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Timothy Sletten appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to mail fraud. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the

reasonableness of the sentence. Sletten has filed a pro se brief challenging the calculation of the Guidelines range. Upon careful review, as to Sletten’s pro se arguments, we conclude that the district court correctly calculated his Guidelines range. We also conclude that thedistrict court correctly assessed a criminal history point for his Iowa driving-whilebarred conviction, as it qualified as a felony. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c) (sentences for all felony offenses are counted); United States v. Holm, 745 F.3d 938, 941 (8th Cir. 2014) (aggravated misdemeanor under Iowa law falls within Guidelines definition of felony offense). As to the argument in the Anders brief, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). The record establishes that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
#### Shirley Peck, Respondent, v Sony Music Corporation, Doing Business as Columbia Records/CBS Inc., Defendant, and James Nevius, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 963]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered August 18, 1994, which, *inter alia,*denied defendant Nevius’ motion to *158dismiss the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Executive Law § 296 (6) and (7) provide that an individual may be held liable for aiding and abetting discriminatory conduct. *Patrowich v Chemical Bank*(63 NY2d 541) is not a bar to maintenance of the action. Here, there are issues of fact as to defendant-appellant’s liability under Executive Law § 296 (6) and (7) as an aider and abettor of the alleged discriminatory conduct. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
Exhibit 32.8

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Long/Short Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Long/Short Commodity Series.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                     
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                         
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Long/Short Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                       
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                        
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                            
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Long/Short Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: November 26, 2008
Order filed May 20, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00393-CV

____________

ANNISE D. PARKER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS FORMER 

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON, AND THE CITY OF 

HOUSTON, Appellants

V.

CARROLL G. ROBINSON, BRUCE R. HOTZE AND JEFFREY N. DAILY, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-19507

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from an interlocutory order denying a plea to the 

jurisdiction signed May 2, 2016. On May 18, 2016, appellants filed a motion in this 

court requesting temporary orders pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

29. Rule 29.3 provides that in an appeal from an interlocutory order, an appellate 
court may make “any temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties’ rights until 

disposition of the appeal and may require appropriate security.” Tex. R. App. P. 29.3. 

Appellants request that we issue an order enforcing the stay of all trial court 

proceedings under sections 51.014(b) and (c) of the Texas Civil Practice & 

Remedies Code pending resolution of this interlocutory appeal of the denial of their 

plea to jurisdiction. Trial is currently set for May 23, 2016.

It appears from the facts stated in the motion that appellants’ rights will be 

prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief is granted. Accordingly, we grant the 

motion and issue the following order.

We ORDER that all proceedings in the trial court be stayed in trial court cause 

number 2014-19507, styled Carroll G. Robinson, Bruce R. Hotze, and Jeffrey N. 

Daily v. Annise D. Parker, Mayor and City of Houston. The proceedings are stayed 

until final decision by this court in this interlocutory appeal or until further orders of 

this court. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Busby, Donovan, and Wise.
Exhibit 32.5

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Long Only Commodity Series.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                        
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                            
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                          
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                           
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                               
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: May 12, 2010
#### PHILOMENA BUDD, GENERAL ADMINISTRATRIX, *ETC.,*PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ERIE LACKAWANNA RAILROAD CO., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same ease below: 98 *N. J. Super.*47.

*Messrs. Lamb, Blake, Hutchinson <& Dunne*and *Mr. John I. Lisowski*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Robert H. Wall*and *Mr. Thomas J. Kilcoyne*for the respondent.

January *29,*1968.

Denied.
### 16

20 24 28 32 36**C E** **N T** **S P** **E R** **G A** **L L** **O N**  

# FIGURE 6

**USGC V AL**  **UES FOR ISOOCT** 

**AN E**  **FROM DEHYDRO PLA**  **NTS**

REQUIRED FOR 25% BTROI ON NEW A LKY INVESTMENT

REQUIRED FOR CASH COST BREAK EVEN) DELTA VERSUS PREMIUM GASOLINE

0 4 8 12

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000**C E** **N T** **S P** **E R** **G A** **L L** **O N** 



### ACTUAL BLEND VALUE PERFOMRANCE (OCTANE & RVP)**TABLE 4 USGC DEHYDROGENATION-BASED C4 ALKYLATION ECONOMICS** 

**ISOOCTANE PRICE/VALUE SENSITIVITY CENTS PER GALLON**  **1994 1995**  **1996 1997**  **1998 1999**  **2000 CAPACITY: 10,368 BPSD (152,410 MGAL/YR) ISOOCTANE**  **FEEDSTOCKS** Mixed Butanes (48.88) (53.30) (66.18) (61.33) (42.72) (56.94) (94.76) N-Butane 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Feedstock Costs (48.88) (53.30) (66.18) (61.33) (42.72) (56.94) (94.76) **VARIABLE OPERATING COSTS** Fuel (5.75) (5.05) (7.20) (7.58) (6.45) (6.91) (12.55) Electricity (2.88) (2.95) (3.03) (3.08) (3.02) (3.18) (3.33) Steam (2.96) (2.60) (3.70) (3.90) (3.31) (3.55) (6.45) Catalysts & Chemicals (3.76) (3.76) (3.76) (3.76) (3.85) (3.77) (3.86) Treated W ater (0.46) (0.48) (0.49) (0.50) (0.51) (0.52) (0.53) Total Variable Costs (15.81) (14.84) (18.18) (18.82) (17.14) (17.93) (26.71) **FIXED OPERATING COSTS (1)** (9.77) (10.02) (10.22) (10.47) (10.57) (10.68) (10.68) **TOTAL CASH COSTS** (74.46) (78.17) (94.58) (90.62) (70.44) (85.55) (132.14) **PRODUCTS** Fuel 3.99 3.51 5.00 5.26 4.47 4.80 8.71 Isooctane (2) 61.63 62.85 70.35 69.49 52.33 62.94 99.56 Total Products 65.62 66.35 75.34 74.75 56.81 67.74 108.27 **CASH MARGIN** (8.84) (11.81) (19.24) (15.87) (13.63) (17.81) (23.88) **ISOOCTANE PRICE NEEDED FOR CASH BREAKEVEN** 70.48 74.67 89.59 85.37 65.96 80.75 123.44 **CASH BREAKEVEN "GREEN PREMIUM" (3) 8.85**  **11.82 19.24**  **15.88 13.63**  **17.81 23.88**  **ADD POLYMERIZATION/HYDROTREATING INVESTMENT** Needed Margin @ 25% ROI (4) 4.34 4.45 4.56 4.68 4.80 4.81 4.92 **ISOOCTANE PRICE NEEDED FOR ROI** 74.81 79.11 94.15 90.04 70.76 85.56 128.36 **"ROI GREEN PREMIUM" (5) 13.18**  **16.26 23.80**  **20.55 18.42**  **22.62 28.80** 

(1) Includes direct labor, supervisory & administative staff, maintenance, supplies, property taxes and insurance. (2) Isooctane value derived from vapor pressure and octane blending calculations versus gasoline at 8 RVP and 93 R+M/2. (3) Isooctane price premium above (below) calculated blending value required to produce cash breakeven economics (zero net cash flow). (4) Simple before-tax return on polymerization/hydrogtreating investment only; no further return on pre-existing dehydro and isomerization facilities assumed. (5)Isooctane price premium above (below) calculated blending value required to produce 25% BTROI on new polymerization/hydyrotreating equipment investment.