alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dennett *versus*Goodwin.

The exception, in favor of *witnessed*notes, in the statute of limitations, applies only to notes made *payable in money.*

A witnessed note, made payable in money *or*in mechanic’s work, is not within the exception, although the *election*whether to take the money or the work, was in the *payee.*

Thus, one gave a witnessed note payable in *one yearr*in money, or *on demand,*if called for in *blacksmith’s work; Held,*the limitation bar applies, although the payee, by not calling for the work and by bringing suit upon the note, elected to take the money.

Assumpsit on a note dated in 1833, promising the plaintiff to pay him forty dollars in one year, or on demand, if called for, in blacksmith’s work. The writ is dated in 1848.

The defendant relied upon the statute of limitations.

The case was submitted for a legal decision.

*C. A.*Everett, for plaintiff, cited 1 Metc. 21; 1 Kelley, 319; 7 Metc. 588.

*45
      *J. Crosby,*for defendant.

Howard, J.

The plaintiff declared on an instrument in writing, in tenor as follows: — “ Milo, December 9, 1833. For value received, I promise to pay Daniel Dennett, or order, forty dollars in one year, and interest, or payable on demand if called for in blacksmith’s work at cash price.

“ Thomas J. Goodwin.

*“*Witness, P. P. Furber.”

The suit was commenced January 17, 1848, and the defendant pleaded the general issue, and the statute of limitations, but admitted, that the note was duly executed. This was all the evidence in the case, presented by the agreed statement of facts.

The limitation of six years, prescribed by the statute of 1821, c. 62, § 7, is relied upon in defence, as a bar to the action. But the plaintiff attempts to avoid the bar presented, under the provisions of § 10, of the same statute, which are : “ That this Act shall not extend to bar any action hereafter brought upon any note in writing, made and signed by any person or persons, and attested by any one or more witnesses, whereby such person or persons has promised, or shall promise to pay any other person or persons, any sum of money mentioned in such note, but all actions upon such note or notes, brought by the original promisee, his executor or administrator, shall and may be maintained as if this Act had never been made, any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.”

This instrument, though denominated a note, in common parlance, does not contain a promise to pay *money absolutely and unconditionally,*and is not a promissory note in the sense of the commercial law. Story on Promissory Notes, § 1, 17, 18, 19; Chitty on Bills, c. 12, p. 516; Bayley on Bills, c. 1, § 1, 3, 4; 2 Black. Com. 467; 3 Kent’s Com. p. 74, (5th Edition.)

Nor do the provisions of the 10th sect, of the statute referred to, embrace notes of this description, which are payable in money, or other things, in the alternative, although attested *46by a witness. *Gilman*v. Wells, 7 Greenl. 25; *Commonwealth Ins. Co.*v. *Whitney,*1 Metc. 21.

The action is, therefore, barred by the statute, and the defendant is entitled to judgment upon the statement of facts.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Carlo Alberto Sisto, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2016-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;

 

3.                                      Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                                      I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                      All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A.

 

March 23, 2020

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Carlo Alberto Sisto                                            |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Carlo Alberto Sisto                                                |
|   | Title: | President (senior   officer in charge of the servicing   function) |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      1,043,889
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    133,140
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         227,341
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       11,996
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 285,039
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,701,405
<COMMON>                                       282,509
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      16
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            182,255
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 464,780
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           518,210
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      43,134
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  6,806
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    16,227
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               368
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 651,880
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  1,701,405
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      532,271
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           57,286
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     392,402
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     449,688
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        82,583
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             1,866
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 84,449
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       35,565
<NET-INCOME>                                   48,884
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    66
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  48,765
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       30,345
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      32,368
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         64,173
<EPS-BASIC>                                  3.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  3.47



</TABLE>
#### El Commercio Publishing Corporation, Appellant, *v.*Morris Starrels, Trading as Morris Starrels & Co.

*Contracts*— Written *contracts*— *Breach of*— *Evidence*— Suffi*ciency.*

• In an action of assumpsit for breach of contract a judgment for defendant will be affirmed where the issue is one of fact, and the evidence, although conflicting, is sufficient to support the findings of the trial judge.

Argued November 11, 1924.

Appeal, No. 174, Oct. T., 1924, by plaintiff, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, June T., 1923, No. 1070, in the case of El Commercio Publishing Corporation v. Morris Starrels, trading as Morris Starrels and Company.

Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit for breach of contract. Before Cassidy, J. Without a jury.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The court found in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error assigned*was among others, the judgment of the court.

*146March 16, 1925:

*James Yearsley,*and with him *Illoway and Felix,*for appellant.

*L. L. Smith,*of *Smith and Strong,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

This case was tried by the judge without a jury. An action was brought to recover under a certain written contract alleged to have been entered into between the parties, in which contract the plaintiff was authorized to insert certain advertisements in a publication which it issued. The testimony introduced for the purpose of binding the defendant, Morris Starrels, to the contract is to the effect that the agent of the plaintiff, Mr. Herrmann, called to see Morris Starrels and according to his statement, to quote his words: “He instructed me to call at his son’s factory, the King Knitting Mills, and tell the son to sign the contract, and this contract was signed in the presence (the witness was stopped).” Later on he testified that defendant said: “Go to my son’s factory and he will sign your contract.” The judge decided after a careful review of all the evidence, “we find nothing therein which would justify us in saying that the defendant authorized the writing in question.” As the court was sitting both as court and jury we cannot say that this was error. Certainly the mere direction to go to the son’s factory and the statement that he would sign a contract is not sufficient to bind the plaintiff, however much the other version in which defendant directed the agent to tell the son to sign might be. It may be that the defendant is trying to escape the payment of an honest debt. Nevertheless, the plaintiff must prove his case and the trial judge was the one to determine what effect to give the testimony of the plaintiff’s agent. The alleged ratification of the contract subsequently does not help the plaintiff for it does not bring it home to the defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 551 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 551

 Expressing the sense of the Senate that illegal immigrants should not 
 receive Social Security benefits and that this prohibition should be 
                           strictly enforced.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 3, 2006

   Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Pryor, Mrs. 
 Clinton, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. 
 Wyden, and Mr. Johnson) submitted the following resolution; which was 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate that illegal immigrants should not 
 receive Social Security benefits and that this prohibition should be 
                           strictly enforced.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that illegal 
immigrants should not receive Social Security benefits and that this 
prohibition should be strictly enforced.
                                 <all>
```
PUBLIC LAW 110–152—DEC. 21, 2007 121 STAT. 1823 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2174: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

Nov. 16, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 17, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–152 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 175 South 

Monroe Street in Tiffin, Ohio, as the ‘‘Paul E. Gillmor Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. PAUL E. GILLMOR POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

Service located at 175 South Monroe Street in Tiffin, Ohio, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Paul E. Gillmor Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 

facilityreferred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Paul E. Gillmor Post Office Building’’. 

Approved December 21, 2007. 

Dec. 21, 2007 

[S. 2174]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      1,242,371
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    34,350
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         223,398
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       341,254
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,841,373
<COMMON>                                       281,321
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      (274)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            156,420
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 437,467
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    4,299
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           564,630
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      118,825
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  74,574
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    16,683
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               344
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 624,551
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  1,841,373
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      322,266
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           22,680
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     255,735
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     278,415
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        43,851
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             1,942
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 45,793
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       28,452
<NET-INCOME>                                   17,341
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    101
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  17,261
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       20,185
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      39,718
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         46,031
<EPS-BASIC>                                  1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.23



</TABLE>
Searched for **http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/isab98-5/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/isab98-5/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6699

WILLIAM FRANCE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CENTRAL PRISON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:22-ct-03136-BO)

Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 23, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William France, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6699 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

William France appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute. On appeal, we confine our review to the 

issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because France’s informal brief 

does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate 

review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) 

(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is 

limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6699 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

LONNY BRISTOW,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

CASE NO. C2-12-412

AMBER, MAIL SCREENER, et al., JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE E.A. PRESTON DEAVERS

Defendants.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or

trial.

Pursuant to the OPINION AND ORDER filed May 31, 2012, JUDGMENT is

hereby entered DISMISSING this action.

Date: May 31, 2012 JAMES BONINI, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:12-cv-00412-EAS-EPD Doc #: 9 Filed: 05/31/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov> To: "Spicer, Gary" <Gary.Spicer@luminant.com> Date: 7/7/2010 9:14 AM Subject: Confirmation of Extension Request Letter Attachments: pic07905.jpg; 2010-07-06 Luminant Power request for extension.pdf

Greetings,

This e-mail is a confirmation that your extension request for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Please be aware that submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date of your questionnair e unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and establishes a new date.

Sincerely, (Embedded image moved to file: pic07905.jpg)

From: "Spicer, Gary" <Gary.Spicer@luminant.com>

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Ronald Jordan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/06/2010 02:17 PM

Subject:

Dear Ms Alicea,

Attached please find Luminant Power’s request for an extension for response to the Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines for its eleven recipient plants. If you have any questions, please contact Gary Spicer at 214-875-8299 (office), 214-973-6150 (mobile) or via e-mail at spicer@luminant.com .

Also, please respond to this e-mail as a method of confirming that you have received it.

(See attached file: 2010-07-06 Luminant Power request for extension.pdf)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

          - [MT-922-07-1310-FI-P; NDM 93550] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

Per 30 U.S.C. 188(d), Upton Resources, Encore Operating, LP, Northern Energy Corporation and WHC Exploration, LLC timely filed a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease NDM 93550, Billings County, North Dakota. The lessees paid the required rental accruing from the date of termination. 

                        No leases were issued that affect these lands. The lessees agree to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre and 16                        2/3                         percent or 4 percentages above the existing competitive royalty rate. The lessees paid the $500 administration fee for the reinstatement of the lease and $163 cost for publishing this Notice.                    

The lessees met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We are proposing to reinstate the lease, effective the date of termination subject to: 
      - The original terms and conditions of the lease;
      - The increased rental of $10 per acre;
      - The increased royalty of 162/3                         percent or 4 percentages above the existing competitive royalty rate; and                     
      - The $163 cost of publishing this Notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen L. Johnson, Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section, BLM Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, 406-896-5098. 

Dated: April 19, 2007. 

Karen L. Johnson, 

Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section.

 [FR Doc. E7-7942 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
# C_2017374EN.01000301.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-465/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Directive 2003/96/EC - Scope - Article 2(4)(b) - Electricity used principally for the purposes of chemical reduction - Concept))

(2017/C 374/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The third indent of Article 2(4)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the electricity used for the operation of turbo blowers intended to compress the air subsequently used in a blast furnace in the process of producing pig iron by chemical reduction of iron ore is not ‘electricity used principally for the purposes of chemical reduction’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.

1

---