alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 13,235.

#### SPERRING et al. v. TAYLOR et al.

[2 McLean, 362.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Indiana.

May Term, 1841.

Pleading at Law— Declaration — Breach op Condition.

1. In a declaration on a marshal’s bond, it is not necessary to aver that the penalty has not been paid.

[Cited in Welmore v. Rice, Case No. 17,-468.]

2. The usual averment of the breach of the condition is sufficient.

[This was an action on a bond by Sperring and Laforgur against Taylor and others.]

Mr. Morrison, for plaintiffs.

Smith & Bright, for-defendants.

McLEAN, Circuit Justice.

The pleadings in this action axe similar u to those in the preceding case, and this suit is founded on the marshal’s bond as in that one. It is unnecessary to review the points already considered and decided, but there is one new point raised in this case which will be examined.

It is objected to the declaration that it contains no averment that the penalty of the bond has not been paid. Was this averment necessary? This bond is taken in a large penalty to secure those who shall be injured through the default or negligence of the marshal No one is entitled to recover on this bond more than an indemnity for the injury sustained. And every individual who suffers from the failure of duty by the marshal, has an equal right to sue on this bond. No one is entitled to recover the penalty, unless he shall show that he has suffered damages to that amount. It is true that the sureties on the bond cannot be compelled to pay more than the penalty. But they cannot discharge themselves by paying the amount of the penalty to any one, who shall recover on the bond a sum less than the penalty. So soon as the sureties shall pay to those who shall be entitled to it, a sum equal to the penalty in their bond, they may set up the fact as matter of defence, or it may, perhaps, be examined on motion that they be discharged. But it is not necessary, in bringing suit on a bond like this, to aver in the declaration the nonpayment of the penalty. An averment of the breach of the condition is sufficient. This principle was recognized in the case of State v. M’Clane, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 192.
No. 52630.

protests 136139-K and 137936-K (New York).

#### Beerfas & Birnbaum, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *O. Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
No. 58107.

protests 590737-G, etc. (New York).

#### B. Holman, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of moufflons the same in all material respects as the merchandise the subject of Abstract 57768, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
NUMBER 13

- 15

- 00184

- CV



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

PROSPERITY ENERGY

CORPORATION

, Appellant,

v.

TERFAM FAMILY, LTD.

AND LAMBERT QUARTEY

, Appellees.

On appeal from the 93rd District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas

.NUMBER 13

- 15

- 00234

- CV



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE PROSPERITY ENERGY CORPORATION

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.



### ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

On May 19, 2015, appellant Prosperity Energy Corporation filed both a petition for

writ of mandamus and appellant’s interlocutory brief in cause number 13

- 15

- 00184

- CV.

We docket the petition for writ of mandamus in our cause number 13

- 15

- 00234

- CV . We

request that appellees and real parties in interest, Terfam Family, Ltd. and Lambert

Quartey, file a response to the pe tition for writ of mandamus within ten days of the date

of this order. The response may be filed as a separate pleading in cause number 13

- 15

-00234

- CV or as a combined response as part of appellees’ brief in cause number 13

- 15

-

00184

- CV.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

21s t day of May, 2015

.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Hickox, Appellant.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*145
      *Richard Lorrame Hickox,*appellant, in propria persona.

*W. Thomas Malcolm,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

January 31, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

At trial, petitioner was represented by appointed counsel. Subsequent to trial, new counsel was appointed to represent petitioner in his appeal to the Superior Court. Such an appeal was filed and resulted in an affirmance of the judgment of sentence. Thereafter, counsel for the petitioner informed petitioner that he would proceed no further with the matter.

Rule 318(c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that: “Where counsel has been assigned, such assignment shall be effective until final judgment, including any proceedings upon direct appeal.”

Petitioner’s counsel, appointed in connection with his appeal to the Superior Court, is directed to proceed in accordance with the Rule.
No. 53053.

#### The A. W. Fenton Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 56714-K and 56715-K (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the, issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
#### John McIntyre, Jr., and others, *Respondents, v.*John C. Seager and others, *Appellants.*

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
## NUMBER 13

- 21

- 00 4 13

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE ARCH FUNDING, LLC

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.



## ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

On November 24 , 2021, relator Arch Funding, LLC filed a petition for writ of

mandamus seek ing to compel the trial court to vacate its order setting aside a trustee’s

sale and to abate the underlying case until Robert Tudor and Fred Harms are joined as

necessary parties.

T h is Court sua sponte order s the underlying trial court proceedings to be stayed

.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary

relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). We request that the real part ies in2 interest, JP Lynx Capital Developments, LLC and Jose Pedraza Jr., or any others whose

interest would be directly affected by the relief sought

, file a response to the petition for

writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See

id. R. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

30 th day of November, 2021.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DANNY VIGORITO, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Messrs. Goodman & Rothenberg*for the petitioner.

*Mr. John G. Thevos*and *Mr. Archibald Kreiger*for the respondent.

March 12, 1968.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1

The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.

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/A of Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P. (the
Partnership) for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer of Magellan Midstream Holdings GP,
LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 Partnership.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Don R. Wellendorf                     
|Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer
|Date: July 10, 2009                       

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00219

- CR

G RADY G ENE V AUGHN

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 415th District

Court

of Parker County (CR16

- 0367)

January 30, 2020

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JU DGME NT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
#### In the Matter of A. HENRY GIORDANO, an attorney at law.

April 24, 1967.

Resignation with prejudice pursuant to *R. R.*1:18A accepted. Opinion reported at 49 *N. J.*210.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2573

_____________________________

BRUCE KEVIN GREEN, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Waddell A. Wallace, Judge.

May 7, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Bruce Kevin Green, Jr., pro se, Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
No. 63155.

#### Northeast Motor Rebuilders, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/18651 (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.
1

Outlook	Entertainment	LLC

625	Forest	Ave

Havertown,	PA	19083	

Phone:	610-952-1776

E-Mail:	steve@otlk.com	

Web:	www.OTLK.com	

U.S.	Department	of	Transportation	

Docket	Management	System

1200	New	Jersey	Ave.,

SE	Washington,	DC	20590	

UAV	specifications

DJI	S1000 Aircraft	Information

Frame:

Diagonal	Wheelbase:	1045mm

Frame	Arm	Length:	386mm

Frame	Arm	Weight(Including	Motor,	Esc,	Propeller	):	325g

Center	Frame	Diameter:	337.5mm

Center	Frame	Weight	(With	Landing	Gear	Mounting	Base,	Servos):	1330g

Landing	Gear	Size:	460mm	(Length)	×511mm	(Width)	×305mm	(Height),	(Top	

width:	155	mm)

Motor:

Stator	Size:	41×14mm

Kv:	400rpm/V

Max	Power:	500W

Weight(With	Cooling	Fan):	158g

Ecs:

Working	Current:	40A

Working	Voltage:	6S	LiPo

Signal	Frequency:	30Hz	~	450Hz

Drive	Pwm	Frequency:	8KHz

Weight(With	Radiators):	35g

Foldable	Propeller:

Material:	High	strength	performance	engineered	plastics
2

Size:	15×5.2inch

Weight:	13g

Flight	Parameters:

Takeoff	Weight:	6.0Kg	~	11.0Kg

Total	Weight:	4.2Kg

Power	Battery:	LiPo	(6S、10000mAh~20000mAh、15C(Min))

Max	Power	Consumption:	4000W

Hover	Power	Consumption:	1500W	(@9.5Kg	Takeoff	Weight)

Hover	Time:	15min	(@15000mAh	&	9.5Kg	Takeoff	Weight)

Working	Environment	Temperature:	-10	°C	~	+40	°C

S1000	User	Manual:	

http://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/s1000/en/S1000_User_Manual_v1.10_en.pdf

Flight	Controller:	3DR	Pixhawk with	GPS

Pixhalk	User	Manual:	

https://3dr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/pixhawk-manual-rev7.pdf

Flight	Control	RC: Spektrum	AR9020	9-Channel	DSMX/XPlus	Receiver

Band:	2.4GHz

User	Manual:	

http://www.spektrumrc.com/ProdInfo/Files/SPMAR9020-Manual.pdf

Video	Link: Amimon	Connex	HD	downlink

Distance	(Outdoor):	3,300ft	LOS

Transmission	Delay:	Less	than	1mS

Radio	Frequency:	5.1-5.8	GHz

Channel	Selection:	Automatic	frequency	selection	(AFS)

Video	Formats:	1080p/60,	1080p/50,	1080i/60,	1080i/50,	

1080p/30,	1080p25,1080p/24,	720p/60,	720p/50,	525i/60,	

625i/50

Regulations:	CE,	FCC,	MIC

DJI	Phantom	3	Pro Aircraft	Information

Aircraft	Specifications:	

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3-pro/info#specs

Aircraft	User	Manual:

https://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_Us

er_Manual__V1.6.pdf
3

DJI	Inspire	1 Aircraft	Information

Aircraft	Specifications:	

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1/info#specs

Aircraft	User	Manual:

https://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_User_Manual_en_v2

.0_1218.pdf
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          14,371
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  184,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                    28,523
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               199,284
<PP&E>                                         174,209
<DEPRECIATION>                                  70,141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 654,104
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           96,914
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (39,273)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   654,104
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               681,412
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  534,489
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               132,670
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                43,858
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,779
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,235)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,269
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,504)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,504)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23









                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Lumenon Innovative Lightwave Technology, Inc.



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-81508 and No. 333-73024) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-74148, No. 333-74150, No.
333-74152, No. 333-67950 and No. 333-31642) on Form S-8 of Lumenon Innovative
Lightwave Technology, Inc. (the "Corporation") of our report dated August 9,
2002, except as to note 14 which is at August 14, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of the Corporation as of June 30, 2002 and 2001 and
the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and stockholders'
equity for the years ended June 30, 2002, 2001 and 2000 and the period from
inception (March 2, 1998) to June 30, 2002 which report appears in the June 30,
2002 annual report on Form 10-K of the Corporation.





/s/ KPMG LLP


Chartered Accountants


Montreal, Canada
September 30, 2002
Before the Third Division,

October 4, 1944

No. 49742.

#### Protests 957635-G, etc., of Fook Wo Tong et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) certain of the merchandise found to be crude drugs was held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669, Tariff Act of 1930, or paragraph 1567, Tariff Act of 1922. Those drugs found to be advanced in value were held dutiable at 10 percent ad valorem under paragraph 34, Tariff Act of 1930 or Tariff Act of 1922. Almonds, shelled, blanched, roasted, or otherwise prepared were held dutiable as apricot kernels at 3 cents per pound under paragraph 762, Tariff Act of 1930, or paragraph 760, Tariff Act of 1922, following Abstracts 34104 and 29214.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8307 

To provide that the memorial to commemorate the sacrifice and service 

of the women who worked on the home front to support the efforts 

of the United States military during World War II may be located 

on the National Mall, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2024 

Ms. GRANGER (for herself and Mrs. DINGELL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide that the memorial to commemorate the sacrifice 

and service of the women who worked on the home 

front to support the efforts of the United States military 

during World War II may be located on the National 

Mall, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Women Who Worked 

5 on the Home Front Memorial Location Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds as follows: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8307 IH

1 (1) During World War II, more than 18 million 

2 women answered the call during a global crisis to 

3 hold down the home front by working as pilots, engi4 neers, mechanics, code breakers, and more. These 

5 women built planes, tanks, munitions, and various 

6 other pieces of equipment needed to aid in the war 

7 effort. 

8 (2) Section 702 of division DD of the Consoli9 dated Appropriations Act, 2023 (40 U.S.C. 8903 

10 note; Public Law 117–328) authorized the Women 

11 Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation to es12 tablish a memorial on Federal land in the District 

13 of Columbia and its environs to commemorate the 

14 service and sacrifice to the United States of the 

15 women who worked on the home front during World 

16 War II. 

17 (3) Locating the commemorative work on the 

18 National Mall would be a respectful extension of the 

19 enduring legacy of the women who worked on the 

20 home front during World War II. 

21 SEC. 3. LOCATION OF MEMORIAL. 

22 Notwithstanding section 8908 of title 40, United 

23 States Code, the commemorative work to commemorate 

24 the commitment and service of the women who worked on 

25 the home front during World War II authorized by section 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8307 IH

1 702 of division DD of the Consolidated Appropriations 

2 Act, 2023 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; Public Law 117–328), 

3 may be located within— 

4 (1) Area I, as depicted on the map entitled 

5 ‘‘Commemorative Areas Washington, DC and Envi6 rons’’, numbered 869/86501 B, and dated June 24, 

7 2003; or 

8 (2) the Reserve (as defined in section 8902(a) 

9 of title 40, United States Code). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00819-CR

Joe Anthony LOREDO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 227041

Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 24, 2010

AFFIRMED

A jury found Joe Anthony Loredo guilty of driving while intoxicated, and the trial court 

suspended Loredo’s sentence and placed him on community supervision. Loredo’s courtappointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that the appeal has no merit. 

Counsel provided Loredo with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to review the 

record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San 
04-09-00819-CR

- 2 -

Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, 

no pet.). Loredo did not file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and 

without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel’s motion to 

withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute 

counsel will be appointed. Should Loredo wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals, Loredo must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review or Loredo must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition 

for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or 

the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. 

Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be 

forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition 

for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH