alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 6020.

#### J. E. McADAMS vs. WELLS FARGO EXPRESS CO.

Application for Writ of Certiorari and. Prohibition.

Syllabus.

Where a new remedy is given for the enforcement of a preexisting right, the presumption is that it is intended tv be concurrent with, and not exclusive of, an already existing remedy, unless the contrary clearly appear.

Appeal from the Civil District Court, for the Parish of Orleans, Division “D,” No..... Hon. Porter Parker, Judge.

Hunter C. Leake and Johnston Armstrong, for relator,

E. Howard McCaleb, for respondent Judge.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion . and decree of the Court, as follows:

Plaintiff, a shipper, brought suit before the Courts for the recovery of certain overcharges, claiming that de*163fendant, an express company, had charged him in excess, of the rates fixed by the State Railroad Commission.

Defendant excepted to the right of the Court to proceed herein, alleging that by Act 175 of 1912, the cognizance of such matters had been vested in the Railroad Commission itself. And his exception having been overruled, he applies to this Court for a writ of prohibition.

Eliminating all extraneous issues, the question finally presented is this; whether the new remedy was intended to be exclusive of all others?

Now it is undeniable that a shipper, charged rates in excess of those fixed by the Commission, had a legal right to recover the overcharges, and a remedy before the Courts, prior to and independent of the aforesaid Act of 1912.

Pine Tree Lumber Co. vs. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 123 La., 383.

And where a new remedy is given for the enforcement 'of a pre-existing right, the presumption is that it is intended to be concurrent with, and not exclusive of, an already existing remedy, unless the contrary clearly appear. State ex rel. Muller vs. Judge, 105 La., 315 (321). This is elementary.

See, Blackstone, Book 1, p. 90; Kent, Vol 1, p. 467.

But Act 175 of 1912, nowhere states that the remedy therein provided shall be exclusive of all others, and nowhere requires a person having a claim againsi á carrier to apply to the 'Commission alone for redress. The title gives no indication of such intention, being simply “to authorize and empower the Commission to award money damages, etc;” and the language of the Statute itself is, *164that any person complaining, i. e., seeking redress, "may apply” to the Commission, etc.

Opinion and decree, January 12th, 1914.

The Statute then does not purpose to provide an exclusive remedy; and thus the plaintiff may avail himself of such other legal remedy as he chooses.

It is therefore ordered that the preliminary order herein issued he recalled, and the writ of prohibition herein asked for he denied.

Writ of prohibition denied.

’Claiborne, J., takes no part.
No. 96-446.

#### Wilkerson *v.*Roswell Lincoln Mercury, Inc., et al.

Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.
#### Strawbridge & Clothier *v.*United States

No. 6922.

Entry No. 3257.

Invoice dated Macclesfield, England, February 1945.

Certified February 1945.

Entered at Philadelphia, Pa., March 31, 1945.

(Decided February 26, 1947)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1989]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Partnership Council Meeting

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting Cancellation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On December 26, 1996, the Department of Defense published a 
notice to announce a meeting of the Defense Partnership Council to be 
held January 22, 1997. (61) FR 68013-68014) This notice is to announce 
that the meeting was cancelled due to conflicts in members' schedules.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Kenneth Oprisko, Chief, Labor Relations Branch, Field Advisory 
Services Division, Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service, 1400 
Key Boulevard, Suite B-200, Arlington, VA, 22209-5144, (703) 696-6301, 
ext. 704.

    Dated: January 23, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-1989 Filed 1-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Case No. 5,641.

#### GOULDING v. FENWICK.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 350.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1822.

Justice or Peace — Fieki Facias — Garnishment —Sai,e—Jurisdiction op Circuit Court.

1. This court has no jurisdiction to quash a fieri facias, issued by order of a justice of the peace, from the office of the clerk of this court, under the14th section of the act of congress, of the 3d of May, 1802 [2 Stat. 193], and the 15th section of the act of 24th June, 1812 [Id. 755], nor to render judgment of condemnation of the rights and credits returned upon such fieri facias as levied upon by the constable in the hands of a third person.

2. The law has provided no means to compel the garnishee to pay the money in his hands.

A fieri facias against the rights and credits only of the defendant was issued from the office of the clerk of this court, by order of the justice of the peace who rendered the judgment, and was returnable to the same office on the 1st Monday of October, 1822. This fieri facias was issued under the 4th section of the act of congress of the 3d of May, 1802 (2 Stat. 193), and the 15th section of the act of the 24th of June, 1812 (2 Stat 755). By the 4th section of the act of 1802, it is enacted that no ca. sa. shall issue on any judgment in any case where the judgment, exclusive of costs, shall not exceed twenty dollars; “but that in such cases execution shall be only on the goods and chattels of the debtor, and shall issue, by order of the justice who may have taken cognizance of the action from the clerk’s office, and shall be returnable thereto, and that all such executions be returnable on the first Monday of every month.” By the 15th section of the act of 1812, it is enacted, “that upon a fieri facias issuing out of the office of the clerk of the county of Washington, upon the judgment of a magistrate, the plaintiff, upon such fieri facias, shall be entitled to have his execution against the goods and chattels, lands and tenements, rights and credits of the defendant.” The constable returned on the execution, that he had “levied on the rights and credits of John Fenwick, in the hands of Matthew Wright, and served a notice of the same, in writing, on the said Wright, notifying him to retain the sum of $20.49, it being the amount of the debt, interest, and costs.”

Mr. Ivey, for plaintiff,

moved for a rule on the defendant and garnishee, to show cause *879why the court should not render judgment •of condemnation of the rights and credits of Fenwick, in the hands of Wright.

Mr. Marbury, at the same time, moved the ■court to quash the execution.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent)

overruled both motions, being of opinion that this court has no jurisdiction in the cause; and that the law has provided no means of compelling the garnishee to pay the money.

THE COURT said that, perhaps, if the garnishee upon such notice, should voluntarily pay, he might plead such attachment and payment against his creditor, but upon this point they did not mean to give an opinion.
FILEDINCOURT 0=AP==A-S 12thCourto<AppealsDistrict

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 FILE COPY

10/2/2015 

### WRIGHT, JEFFREY DOCK Tr. Ct. No. 241-1880-13 

### This is to serve notice to the court of appeals that this Court granted a motion for extension oftime to file a petition for discretionary review until September 7, 2015. The time for filing the petition for discretionary review has expired. Abel Acosta, Clerk COANo. 12-14-00125-CR PD-1007-15

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK CATHY LUSK 1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354 TYLER, TX 75701 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 215 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require oil polluters to 

pay the full cost of oil spills, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 27, 2011 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require 

oil polluters to pay the full cost of oil spills, 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 ‘‘Big Oil Bailout Pre5 vention Trust Fund Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND. 

7 (a) LIMITATIONS ON EXPENDITURES.—Section 

8 9509(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

9 to expenditures from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund) 

10 is amended— 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 215 IS

1 (1) by striking paragraph (2); 

2 (2) by striking ‘‘EXPENDITURES’’ and all that 

3 follows through ‘‘Amounts in’’ and inserting ‘‘EX4 PENDITURES.—Amounts in’’; and 

5 (3) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through 

6 (F) as paragraphs (1) through (6), respectively, and 

7 indenting appropriately. 

8 (b) AUTHORITY TO BORROW.—Section 9509(d) of 

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to authority 

10 to borrow for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund) is amend11 ed— 

12 (1) by striking paragraph (2); 

13 (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para14 graph (2); and 

15 (3) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)— 

16 (A) by striking subparagraph (B); and 

17 (B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as 

18 subparagraph (B). 

19 SEC. 3. ADVANCE PAYMENTS. 

20 Section 1012 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 

21 U.S.C. 2712) is amended by adding at the end the fol22 lowing: 

23 ‘‘(m) ADVANCE PAYMENTS.—The President shall 

24 promulgate regulations that allow advance payments to be 

25 made from the Fund to States and political subdivisions 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 215 IS

1 of States for actions taken to prepare for and mitigate 

2 substantial threats from the discharge of oil.’’. 

3 SEC. 4. BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

4 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

5 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

6 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

7 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

8 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

9 by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, pro10 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

11 vote on passage. 

12 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

13 This Act and the amendments made by this Act take 

14 effect on April 15, 2010. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
|    |                                                                                                                                |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Amtech Systems, Inc. (the “registrant”); |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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; |

|          |
|----------|
|          |  |  |  |
| By  | /s/ Fokko Pentinga |   |
|     | Fokko Pentinga |   |
|     | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|     | Amtech Systems, Inc. |   |
|     | Date: | December 9, 2014 |   |
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                                 --------------

I, Andrew Reiben, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report (this "annual report") on Form 10-K/A of
ATC Healthcare, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

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

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

                  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 evaluations; and

                  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
fourth Fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

                  (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 registrant'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 registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: June 27, 2006         /s/ANDREW REIBEN
                            ---------------------------
                            Andrew Reiben
                            Chief Financial Officer,
                            Senior Vice President, Finance and Treasurer

                                       15
**Exhibit 23.1**

**INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of International Smart Sourcing, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form S-3 (File No. 333-48701) of our report dated March 11, 2005 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of December 31, 2004 and for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2004 and December 26, 2003, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB. 

| */s/ MARCUM   & KLIEGMAN LLP* |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |   |
| *Marcum & Kliegman LLP*       |   |
| *New York, NY*                    |   |
| *March 25, 2005*                  |   |
No. 6103.

#### JNO C. LEWIS & CO. vs. BAYOU SALE PLANTING COMPANY, ET AL.

Syllabus,

1. Where a corporation gives its note for its own obligation, thereby inducing the creditor to rely and sue upon the note instead of upon its claim, it is estopped from setting up technical informalities in the confection of such note.

2. A surety can require a discussion only upon complying with the requirements of C. C., 3047.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “D,” No. 101,197. Hon. Porter Parker, Judge.

C. F. Borah and H. '0. Bloch, for plaintiff and appellee.

Charles Schneidau, for defendant and appellant.

W. W, Wall, attorney.

*287Opinion and decree, May 18th, 1914

Rehearing refused, June 15th, 1914.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Defendant Company insured its property and gave its note for the premium. It sets up as a defense that the note was signed by its president alone, whilst, its charter requires that it should be signed by both president and secretary.

Such a defense cannot avail as to a note given for a valid obligation of the corporation. It was clearly within the scope of the president’s duty to make provisions for the payment of its obligations. By giving the note he has induced the plaintiffs to rely and sue upon the note instead upon their claim, and the corporation is estopped from seeking to change a condition brought about by the act of its president;

For still stronger reasons that defense cannot avail the other defendant. As surety he cannot avail himself of the want of capacity, in the principal debtor, C. C., 3036, and having himself signed the note on behalf of the corporation he is personally iiable if he had no authority to do so. C. ¡0., 3Ó1Ó.

As to his right to insist upon a discussion of the property belonging'to the corporation, he cannot do so unless he complies with the requirements of Art. 3047, C. C. . He may still do so at the proper time. C. C., 3051.

Judgment affirmed.

GODDHAUX, J.

I concur in the decree.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28076-28077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9630]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated January 16, 2007, and published in the Federal 
Register on January 23, 2007, (72 FR 2907), Organix Inc., 240 Salem 
Street, Woburn, Massachusetts 01801, made application by letter to the 
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370), a basic

[[Page 28077]]

class of controlled substance listed in schedule I.
    The company plans on manufacturing this controlled substance for 
sale to its customers. These customers will sell the drug in small 
quantities for research purposes or as drug standards for forensic 
laboratories.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Organix Inc. to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled 
substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has 
investigated Organix Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is 
consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included 
inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, 
verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and 
a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant 
to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above 
named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the 
basic class of controlled substance listed.

    Dated: May 14, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-9630 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### Benny Lee BLOODWORTH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-740.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 23, 1998.

Nancy A, Daniels, Public Defender, and Angela Sjhelley, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Denise O. Simpson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of his convictions of attempted sexual battery of a child and lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child, and of the sentence imposed with regard to the conviction of lewd and lascivious act in *384the presence of a child. Specifically, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in determining that nine-year-old L.S. was competent to testify, and that the sentence imposed as to the conviction of lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense. We affirm the first issue without discussion, and reverse and remand for re-sentencing with respect to the second issue.

The offense of lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child under the age of sixteen is a second degree felony, for which the maximum period of incarceration is fifteen years. *See*§ 800.04(4), Pla.Stat. (1995). The trial court imposed a sentence of sixty-five months, to be followed by a ten-year period of probation. The total period of incarceration and probation exceeds the maximum permissible term of incarceration which may be imposed as punishment for the crime. *See Kline v. State,*642 So.2d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Accordingly, the sentence imposed for lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child is reversed and remanded with directions to impose a sentence which does not exceed the statutory maximum for a second degree felony.

JOANOS, WOLF and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
      32.2





**STATEMENT
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


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





I,
      Eric
      Young, Chief Financial Officer of Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd. (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:





(a)
      The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March
      31,
      2005, to which this certification accompanies (the "Annual Report"), fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
      The
      information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


March
                22, 2006
              
              /S/
                Eric YoungEric
                Young, Chief Financial Officer


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd. and
      will
      be retained by Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.