alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### G. L. Finn *et al.*v. F. G. Jones.

No. 16,062.

Tax *Deeds*— Consideration. A tax deed held void on its face because it did not state the amount of the delinquent taxes or-the amount for which the land was sold.

Error from Wichita district court; Charles E. Lob-dell, judge.

Opinion filed June 5, 1909.

Affirmed.

*J. S. Simmons,*for the plaintiffs in error.

*W. H. Russell,*and. *Frank V. Russell,*for the defendant in error.

*Per Curiam:*

This is an action of ejectment involving the question whether a certain tax deed more than, five years old is void on its face. The objection to the deed is that it fails to state the amount of the delinquent taxes or the amount for which the land was sold. It recites that in September, 1897, it was bid.in for the-county, and that on February 1, 1902, an assignment, was made to G. L. Finn for $9.2.6, being a sum equal to the cost of redemption at that time. It then recites that the subsequent taxes of the year 1897, amounting-to $7.87, and of the year 1898, amounting to $7.70, and of the year 1899, amounting to $6.41, and of the year-1900, amounting to $5.74, amounting in the aggregate to $36.98, had been paid by thé purchaser. In the-granting clause of the deed, which was executed on the same day the assignment was made, February 1, 1902, it is recited that in consideration of $51.65, taxes, costs, and interest due on said land for the years 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899 and 1900, paid to the treasurer, the land was conveyed to Finn.

It is impossible to determine from the face of the-deed the amount for which the land was sold or the-amount of the subsequent taxes. From one statement-it would seem that when the certificate was assigned,. *432on February 1, 1902, the full amount of the taxes for 1896 as well as all subsequent taxes amounted to $9.26, but later recitals show that the- subsequent taxes could not have been included in that sum. The subsequent taxes specified in.the deed as paid amount to $27.72, whereas the deed recites that the aggregate was $36.98. That aggregate appears to equal the amount of the taxes for 1896 and the four items mentioned as subsequent taxes. This, however, does not correspond with the express consideration of $51.65, said to be the total amount due on the land. If this is the correct amount, and if from it are taken the itéms named in the deed as subsequent taxes, it would make the taxes of 1896 $23.93 instead of $9.26. Treating the $36.98 item as the amount of subsequent taxes, that would leave $14.67 as the taxes of 1896, instead of $9.26, and if the $36.98 includes the taxes of 1896 there is still the amount of $14.67 to be accounted for. The items set forth in the deed can not by any computation be harmonized, nor can the amount of subsequent taxes or the consideration for which the sale was made be learned from the recitals of the deed. The court rightly held the instrument to be void on its face. *(Robidoux v. Munson,*75 Kan. 207.)

Neither the lapse of time nor the facts in the case furnish any basis for applying the doctrine of estoppel invoked by plaintiffs.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
No. 99-7807.

#### Garces-Garcia *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FRED A. LOTFIAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA00-1835-PJM)

Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 22, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fred A. Lotfian, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, Tamera Lynn

Fine, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Fred A. Lotfian appeals from the district court’s order

entering judgment in favor of the United States in its action to

recover amounts due on a promissory note executed in connection

with a student loan. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Lotfian, No. CA-00-1835-PJM (D. Md. filed Dec. 7, 2001 & entered

Dec. 10, 2001). We deny as moot the Government’s motion to require

Lotfian to serve his informal brief. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge for the **

Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LARRY JONES, a/k/a VERNON JONES,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

M. KRAMER, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-55415

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01009-R-JCR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 7, 2010

Pasadena, California

Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BREYER, District

Judge.** 

The California Court of Appeal determined as an alternative ground for

affirming Jones’s conviction that “[d]efendant cannot have suffered prejudice, even

if there are materials in [Officer] Tapia’s file bearing on her credibility that should

FILED

AUG 05 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

have been disclosed [prior to trial].” Our review of the record demonstrates that

this holding was not (1) “contrary to, or . . . an unreasonable application of, clearly

established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,”

or (2) “based on a unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and (2).

The record also demonstrates that the alleged discovery and disclosure

violations did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in

determining the jury’s verdict. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993). 

Given (1) the percipient direct testimony of Officer Barillas, Officer Dadisho, and

Officer Mora (which corroborated the testimony of Officer Tapia), (2) Jones’s

counsel’s argument to the jury that Tapia’s testimony about what she saw and what

she could not see was “absolutely and completely honest,” and (3) the testimony

about the respective roles of the “dealer” and the “hook” in these kinds of drug

sales, the evidence against Jones was substantially compelling and more than

sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20342]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33,481]


Abele Knitting Mills, Incorporated, Farmingdale, New York; Notice 
of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on May 12, 1997 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on behalf of former workers at Abele Knitting Mills, 
Incorporated, located in Farmingdale, New York (TA-W-33,481).
    The Department of Labor has been unable to locate the company 
official at the subject firm. Consequently, the Department of Labor 
cannot conduct an investigation to make a determination as to whether 
the workers are eligible for adjustment assistance benefits under the 
Trade Act of 1974.
    Therefore, further investigation in this matter would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 18th day of July 1997.
Curtis K. Kooser,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-20342 Filed 7-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
No. 39236.

#### Protests 326952-G, etc., of J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Veils in part of lace, braid, or trimmings similar to those involved in *Pustet*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 530, T. D. 41396) were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430. Braids, hoods, and other articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230 were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20367]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[ME47-01-7002b; A-1-FRL-5867-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maine; (Hancock and Waldo Counties Ozone Maintenance Plan Revision--
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the State of Maine. This revision establishes 
explicit year 2006 motor vehicle emissions budgets [Volatile Organic 
Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>)] for the Hancock 
and Waldo counties ozone maintenance area to be used in determining 
transportation conformity. In the final rules section of this Federal 
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final 
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a 
noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A 
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final 
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to that direct 
final rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this 
proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule 
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in 
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this proposal. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this proposal should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, 
Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAA), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Bldg., Boston, MA 02203. 
Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours, by 
appointment at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, 
MA and the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental 
Protection, 71 Hospital Street, Augusta, ME 04333.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald O. Cooke, (617) 565-3508.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the direct 
final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal 
Register.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: July 20, 1997.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I
[FR Doc. 97-20367 Filed 7-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[Cite as State v. Folino , 2021-Ohio-1469.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,

- vs -

MICHAEL FOLINO, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2020-12-132

D E C I S I O N 4/26/2021

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2020-09-1247

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Governme nt Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee Engel & Martin, LLC, Mary K. Mart in, 4660 Duke Drive, Suite 101 , Mason, Ohio 45040, for appellant

Per Curiam. {¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal fil ed by appellant, Michael Folino, the transcript of the docket and jou rnal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review ofButler CA2020-12-132 the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any err ors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record i ndependently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and wit hout infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to w ithdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellan t. {¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no res ponse having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal i s dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

PIPER, P.J., M. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 9, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00873

- CR

Anthony Arlanders ROSS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Ju dicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR12490

The Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sachiko Nagao ‘ s Notification of Late Reporter ’ s Record is this date NOTED. The

Reporter ’ s R ecord must be filed no later than March 16, 2020.

_____________________ ____________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of March, 2020

.

___________ ________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 28, 2015

a1019 

# Order

Clerk October 28, 2015

148643

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148643

COA: 318792

Wayne CC: 13

- 001296

- FC

DAVINA CORAN MOSBY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of July 29, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the January 3, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v

Lockridge (Docket No. 149073). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on

July 29, 2015, 498 Mich 358 (2015), the application is again considered, and it is

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed

by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32



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 Sybron Dental Specialties, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Floyd W. Pickrell, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Gregory D. Waller, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, 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) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                          
|--------------------------
|                          
|/s/ Floyd W. Pickrell, Jr.
|Floyd W. Pickrell, Jr.,   
|Chief Executive Officer   
|                          
|May 10, 2005              
|                          
|/s/ Gregory D. Waller     
|Gregory D. Waller,        
|Chief Financial Officer   



May 10, 2005



This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<PAGE>

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

I, David Shamy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Digitalpreviews.com, Inc.
for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2003 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Digitalpreviews.com,
Inc.

Date:  May 14, 2003

By:    /s/   David Shamy
     -----------------------------------
             David Shamy
             Principal Executive Officer
             Principal Financial Officer
Case No. 9,388.

#### MECKLIN v. CALDWELL.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 400.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1807.

Bail in Civil Cases — Sufficiency of Affidavit —Specific Injury — Damages.

In assault and battery, the affidavit to hold to bail, must state some specific injury to the person of the plaintiff, and must be positive as to some amount of damages.

[See Case No. 0.3S7.]

Assault and battery. The affidavit stated a beating, without any special damage, except that the plaintiff could not, for some days, transact all 1ns business, as clerk in one of the departments, as well as usual, and that the injury was such, that he thinks that ten pounds sterling would not be too great a compensation therefor.

TI-IE COURT

refused to hold defendant to bail on the affidavit, it not being positive as to any amount of damages, and not stating any specific injury to the person of the plaintiff.

FITZHUGH. Circuit Judge, absent.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 80 (Friday, April 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 22962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09448]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9014-6]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly Receipt of Environmental Impact Statements

Filed 04/14/2014 Through 04/18/2014
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20140125, Final EIS, FHWA, CA, California High-Speed Train 
(HST): Fresno to Bakersfield Section High-Speed Train, Review Period 
Ends: 05/27/2014, Contact: Stephanie Perez 202-493-0388.
EIS No. 20140126, Final Supplement, USN, 00, Introduction of the P-8A 
Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft into the U.S. Navy Fleet, Review Period 
Ends: 05/27/2014, Contact: Cory Zahm 757-322-4347.
EIS No. 20140127, Final EIS, NPS, CA, Golden Gate National Recreation 
Area and Muir Woods National Monument Final General Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement, Review Period Ends: 05/27/2014, 
Contact: Tom Gibney 303-969-2479.
EIS No. 20140128, Draft EIS, USFS, CA, Tule River Reservation 
Protection Project, Comment Period Ends: 06/09/2014, Contact: Richard 
Stevens 559-539-2607.
EIS No. 20140129, Final EIS, USACE, CO, Moffat Collection System 
Project, Review Period Ends: 06/09/2014, Contact: Rena Brand 303-979-
4120.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20140065, Draft EIS, USFS, OR, Proposed Revised Land Management 
Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, 
Comment Period Ends: 08/15/2014, Contact: Sabrina Stadler 541-523-1264.

    Revision to the FR Notice Published 03/14/2014; Extending the 
Comment Period from 06/16/2014 to 08/15/2014.

    Dated: April 22, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-09448 Filed 4-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42149-42150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20508]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Notice of Application To Withdraw From Listing and Registration 
on the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. Issuer Delisting; Notice of 
Application To Withdraw From Listing and Registration; (B.O.S. Better 
On-Line Solutions Ltd., Ordinary Shares Par Vale NIS 1.00; Ordinary 
Share Purchase Warrants) File No. 1-14184

July 30, 1997.
    B.O.S. Better On-Line Solutions Ltd. (``Company'') has filed an 
application with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange 
Act of 1934 (`'Act'') and Rule 12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to 
withdraw the above specified securities (``Securities'') from listing 
and registration on the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'') or 
``Exchange'').
    The reasons cited in the application for withdrawing the Security 
from listing and registration include the following:
    According to the Company, the Securities are listed on the Nasdaq 
SmallCap Market and the BSE, pursuant to a Registration Statement on 
Form F-1 that was declared effective by the Commission on April 2, 
1996. The issuer cannot justify the expense of being listed on two 
exchanges and therefore wishes to withdraw from the BSE.
    The Company has notified the BSE of its intent to withdraw its 
Securities from listing and registration. According to the Company, the 
BSE has raised no objection to the delistings.
    Any interested person may, on or before August 20, 1997, submit by 
letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 
Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549, facts hearing upon whether 
the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the 
exchanges and what terms, it any, should be imposed by the Commission 
for the protection of investors. The Commission, based on the 
information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the 
application

[[Page 42150]]

after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to 
order a hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20508 Filed 8-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M