alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Searched for **http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/isab2003-3/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/isab2003-3/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Opinion issued January 8 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 19
- 00001
- CV

——————————— IN RE ELIZABETH THOM AS , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Elizabeth Thomas, acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we compel the trial court to vacate its (1) December 14, 2018 notice setting a status conference and (2) December 17, 2018 order setting a show cause hearing for san ctions in the underlying case

. 1 We deny the petition. Thomas’s motion

1 The underlying case is James Allen, et al. v. MTH Lending Group L.P. , cause number 2017

- 76078, pending in the 1 27th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable R.K. Sandill presiding.2

for sanctions is denied. Thomas’s motion for an emergency stay of proceedings and all other pending motions are dismissed as moot

. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, Justice Goodman, and Justice Countiss.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 258 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 258

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 1429), An Act to reauthorize 
the Head Start Act, to improve program quality, to expand access, and 
for other purposes, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall 
correct the bill by striking subsection (m)(1) of

              

 section 640 of the Head Start Act, as added by section 6(g) of the 
bill, and inserting the following:
            ``(1) to implement policies and procedures to ensure that 
        homeless children are identified and prioritized for 
        enrollment;''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 14, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 258

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to correct the 
                        enrollment of H.R. 1429.
```
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**Certification of Periodic Report**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of National CommerceFinancial Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sheldon M. Fox, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, 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 Company.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 10

[UGI LETTERHEAD]

                                                     June 18, 1998


Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette
   Securities Corporation
277 Park Avenue
New York, New York  10172

         Re:      UGI Utilities, Inc. Series B Medium-Term Notes
                  Agency Agreement Amendment

Dear Sirs:

         You are currently serving as agent for the placement of UGI Utilities,
Inc. (the "Company") Series B Medium-Term Notes ("Notes") under an Agency
Agreement dated August 1, 1996 ("Agreement"). Paragraph 1 of the Agreement
defines the term "Securities" as ".... up to $75,000,000 aggregate offering
price of its Series B Medium-Term Notes Due More Than Nine Months from Date of
Issue registered under the registration statement referred to in Section 2(a)."
The Company has increased the aggregate principal amount of Notes available for
issuance from $75,000,000 to $107,000,000. The latter amount is equal to the
amount of "Registered Securities" covered by the registration statement
referenced in paragraph 2(a) of the Agreement.

         As of June 18, 1998, all references in the Agreement to $75,000,000 as
the aggregate amount of Notes shall be deemed to be references to $107,000,000
aggregate amount of Notes. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall
remain unaffected by this amendment.

         Please confirm your agreement to this amendment to the Agreement by
signing a copy of this letter and returning it to us in the enclosed
self-addressed envelope.

                                          Very truly yours,

                                          UGI UTILITIES, INC.


                                          By:     /s/ John C. Barney
                                             ------------------------------
                                             John C. Barney
                                             Vice President-Finance & Accounting

Confirmed and Accepted, as of
the date first above written.
Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette
   Securities Corporation

By:      /s/ Saundra L. Gulley
         -----------------------------
         Name:    Saundra L. Gulley
         Title:   Senior Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                        
<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
                              
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                        1
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                               796
<ALLOWANCES>                                 58
<INVENTORY>                                 181
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          1,039
<PP&E>                                      301
<DEPRECIATION>                              282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            1,061
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     2,200
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                    852
<OTHER-SE>                               (1,991)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              1,061
<SALES>                                     381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            781
<CGS>                                       472
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (19)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              60
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          60
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                 60
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.01
                               

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,901
<SECURITIES>                                     2,873
<RECEIVABLES>                                  165,104
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,477)
<INVENTORY>                                     80,680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               275,112
<PP&E>                                         581,922
<DEPRECIATION>                               (287,952)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 680,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          119,781
<BONDS>                                         30,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,764
<OTHER-SE>                                     425,080
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   680,502
<SALES>                                        446,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               446,232
<CGS>                                          268,356
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  375,573
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   724
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,059
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 70,639
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,902
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             42,737
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,737
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.98
        

</TABLE>
Case No. 8,636.

#### In re LYNCH et al.

[16 N. B. R. 38; 124 Pittsb. Leg. J. 205.]

district Court, S. D. New York.

June 30, 1877.

Deposition for Proof of Debt — Foreign Country.

Proof of debt can only be taken in a foreign country before one of the officers authorized by section 5079 of the Revised Statutes to do so. ’

[In the matter of Robert Y. Lynch and William Emberson, bankrupts.]

By the Register:

I, James F. Dwight, one of the registers of said court in bankruptcy, do hereby certify that in the course of the proceedings in said cause before me the following question arose pertinent to the said proceedings, and is thus stated: Facts: The attorneys for James Hardy, trading as James Hardy & Co., Nottingham, in the county of Nottinghamshire, kingdom of Great Britain, offered for filing a deposition for proof of debt, made by said Hardy and executed and acknowledged before one Fras. Geo. Rawson, United States consular agent at said Nottingham aforesaid, which deposition I refused to file “because not taken before any of the officers authorized *1172by the 5079th section of the Revised Statutes to take proofs of debt in a foreign country.” The attorneys for the creditors, Messrs, Arthur, Phelps, Knevals and Ransom, object to the decision of the register, rejecting the proof, and pray that the following question may be certified to the court for its decision: “Did the register err in refusing to file said deposition for proof of claim for the reasons indorsed thereon? As requiied by the practice I state as my opinion: That the statute having designated before whom proofs may be taken in foreign countries, others are not authorized to take them. All of which is respectfully submitted, this 29th of June, 1877.

1

 [Reprinted from 16 N. B. R. 38, by permission,]

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

Upon the certificate of James F. Dwight, register, etc., in charge of the above entitled matter, the following is the decision of the court: The question is answered in the negative.
Case No. 13,977.

#### THOMPSON v. SMITH et al.

[1 Dill. 458.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.

1870.

Writ op Assistance — Against Whom Issued — Parti es to Suit — Void Title.

The power of a court of chancery to put the purchaser of the mortgaged premises into possession by a writ of assistance, or summary proceedings, extends only to the parties to the suit and those coming in under them after suit commenced, and does not extend to the case of the wife of the mortgagor, not a party to the suit, claiming under color of title acquired from one of the defendants before suit brought, although such title may be void or inoperative, by statute.

In equity.

Morris Lamprey, for complainant.

Greenleaf Clark, for defendants.

NELSON, District Judge.

An application is made by petition, to modify a writ of assistance, granted to put the complainant into possession of the mortgaged premises. The writ of assistance was issued by the clerk, not only against the mortgagor and T. R. Fletcher, defendants in the suit, but also against the wife of the mortgagor, who was not a party to the suit, but who lived upon the premises with him. This application is made in behalf of the wife, Mary T. B. Smith, who claims the possession of the mortgaged premises under color of title derived from one of the defendants, prior to the commencement of the suit for a foreclosure. It is a well settled rule, founded in reason and justice, that the power of a court of chancery to put a purchaser of the mortgaged premises into the possession, by a summary process, extends only to the parties to the suit, or those coming into the possession under the parties to the suit, subsequent to the commencement of the same. If, therefore, Mary T. B. Smith was in the possession of any portion of the mortgaged premises, prior to the commencement of the foreclosure suit, she can*1094not be dispossessed by tbis summary proceeding. She is capable of acquiring, by purchase, or otherwise, real property, and holding the title to the same, under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Now, the evidence offered upon the hearing of the motion clearly establishes the fact that she was in possession of these premises, prior to the commencement of suit, under color of title, and this evidence is not controverted by the purchaser at,the master’s sale. Her possession is not denied, but it is alleged that her right to that possession is not valid, the deed under which she claims being void or inoperative by statute, as against the mortgagee and purchaser. This raises a question of title which cannot be disposed of in this summary proceeding. The purchaser must seek the usual remedy for settling such questions. The writ of assistance is modified, and all proceedings stayed, so far as Mary T. B. Smith is concerned. Writ modified.
Exhibit 12.2


                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Alexander A. Lutsky, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of OJSC Rostelecom;

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;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Exchange Act) for the Company and
     have:

     (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
          by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
          procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
          over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
          the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over
          financial reporting; and

5.   The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
     most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
     Company's auditors and the Company's Board of Directors:

     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record,
          process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal
          control over financial reporting.


Date: June 30, 2004

                     By:             /signed/   Alexander A. Lutsky
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                          Alexander A. Lutsky
                        Chief Accountant (Chief Financial Officer) of Rostelecom
Exhibit 32.1


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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Argan, Inc. , a Delaware  corporation
(the  "Company"),  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2006,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Rainer  Bosselmann,  Chairman  and Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,
hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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.    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
            respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of the
            Company.


Date: June 13, 2006      By: /s/ Rainer Bosselmann
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                              Rainer Bosselmann
                               Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




A signed  original of this document has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.


                                       35
Case No. 6,935.

#### HURST v. KER.

[1 Wash. C. C. 189.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. Term, 1804.

Ejectment — Nox Peos.

After the defendant in ejectment has appeared. and entered into the common rule, he may take a rule on the plaintiff for trial, or non pros; although the declaration has not been changed, so as to make it against the real defendant. -This is the neglect of the plaintiff, and he cannot take advantage of it.

This ejectment, and many others, were returned to April term, 1803, and were then put to issue, the defendants agreeing to enter into the common rule. The suits, however, were not set down on the docket, for trial at the last term, or at this, and the change in the declarations were not made, so as to make them against the real defendants, until a few days ago, under a rule made this term.

Mr. Ingersoll now moved for an order,

that these suits should be tried at next term, or that non pros should be entered, and notice given at bar; and he relied on the laws of this state; that if the plaintiff, after the cause is at issue, do not try, he shall be non prossed, if notice in court was given at the preceding term. Read, Dig. 66. He stated, that though the new declarations were not filed until this term, yet it was mere form, and cited the case of Lessee of Cherry v. Aikens [unreported], where it was decided in the supreme court of errors and appeals, that if the parties go on upon the old declaration, to verdict and judgment, it is not error. He also cited [Duffield v. Stille] 2 Dali. [2 U. S.] 156.

Mr. Levy insisted,

that the causes were not at issue, until after the new declarations were filed; which being after this term commenced, they could not have been tried.

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice, observed to Mr. Levy, that he had no doubt, from the beginning, that the causes were to be considered as being at issue, before the new declarations were filed; that' is, at the time the pleas were put in; and that the altering the declarations, to introduce the name of the real defendant, was a mere matter of form. But the difficulty with him was, whether the defendant might not evade the effect of the order, by agreeing to try; and yet most cer*1039tainly, the causes could not be tried at this term, as no venire had, or could issue.

Mr. Rawle, in answer to this difficulty—

By the practice of this state, no person but the plaintiff can set down the case for trial, unless he is compelled by a proviso rule; so that he pleads his own negligence, to prevent the rule from being made.

Before WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice, and PETERS, District Judge.

1

 [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

I am satisfied with this answer. I did not know that such was the practice here. I was misled by the Virginia practice, where it is the clerk’s duty to put down the causes on the trial docket, as soon as they are at issue. But if only the plaintiff can do this, unless hastened by a proviso rule, we ought surely to grant it' Rule granted.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 4 8 DB 202 2 (No. 21 RST 2022)

:

BRIAN L. WATSON : Attorney Registration No. 84197

:

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

FROM INACTIVE STATUS : ( Montgomery County )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19 th day of May

, 202 2 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinar y Board Member dated May 10 , 2022

, is approved and it is ORDERED that

BRIAN L. WATSON

, who has been on Inactive Status

, h as demonstrated that he has the

moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in

the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of

the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation

and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner

.