alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FRANCIS v. NORRIS.

October 28, 1837.

*Rule to show cause why a sheriff's sale should not be set aside.*

The 63d section of the act of 16th June, 1836, relating to executions, providing that the sheriff’s advertisement, in the newspapers, of his sale of defendant’s real estate, shall be “once a week during three successive weeks,” requires, that between the date of the first advertisement and that of the sale, three whole weeks shall elapse.

THIS was a motion to set aside a sheriff’s sale, on the ground that the sheriff had not given sufficient notice of the time and place of sale, under the 63d section of the act of 16th of June, 1836, relating to executions, *(Stroud's Purd. tit.*Executions,) by advertisement in the newspapers, “ *once a week during three successive weeks previous to such sale."*The defendant obtained this rule to show cause.

The sheriff had advertised the intended sale in the newspapers, 1st, on Wednesday, 13th Sept. 1837; 2d, Wednesday, the 20th Sept. 1837 ; and 3d, Wednesday, the 27th September, 1837. The sale was fixed for Monday, the 2d October, 1837. Thus the sale was advertised in every week of the three weeks of the calendar, computing from the first day of the week, before the sale, but *three weeks*had not elapsed between the first day of advertisement and the day of sale.

*151
      *D. P. Brown,*for the rule.

*Tyson,*contra.

Per Curiam.—

The act by its language, “ during three successive weeks,” meant to require,the advertisements to occupy from the first to the last, between the date of their first, and the date of the sale, three whole weeks. Here but nineteen days’ advertisement of the time and place of sale occurred. The advertisement “ once a week,” has relation to the full expiration of the whole week, from the date of the first advertisement, and so as to the remaining three weeks; whereas, the error here is in computing backward, from the first day of the week according to the calendar. This gives but two weeks and five days’ notice in this case, in point of time, not looking to the duration of a week, from any given day, in ordinary parlance, to which the legislature evidently referred. And this construction of the intention of the legislature, is borne out by the fact, that in many, if not most of the counties, except that of Philadelphia, weekly papers are only published, and that short notices of the sale of a defendant’s real estate, are likely to do injustice, as well to his creditors as to himself.

Rule absolute.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NO. 2-03-378-CR

CODY RINN                                  					APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	----------

	FROM THE COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 8 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered the “Appellant’s  Motion To Abandon  Appeal.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). 									 								

										PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	WALKER, MCCOY, JJ.; and CAYCE, C.J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 6, 2004
123 STAT. 3494 PUBLIC LAW 111–135—JAN. 29, 2010 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3788: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 

Nov. 5, 6, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 21, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–135 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3900 Darrow 

Road in Stow, Ohio, as the ‘‘Corporal Joseph A. Tomci Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CORPORAL JOSEPH A. TOMCI POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

Service located at 3900 Darrow Road in Stow, Ohio, shall be known 

and designated as the ‘‘Corporal Joseph A. Tomci Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

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

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

to the ‘‘Corporal Joseph A. Tomci Post Office Building’’. 

Approved January 29, 2010. 

Jan. 29, 2010 

[H.R. 3788] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1 with PUBLAW
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 FirstBingo.com (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Richard L. Wachter, 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:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 12th day of August, 2003.



| | /s/ Richard L. Wachter
Richard L. Wachter
Chief Financial Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------













---
#### AT&T UNIVERSAL CARD SERVICES, INC., petitioner, v. Benethel REMBERT.

No. 98-352.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Nov. 2, 1998.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Justice O’CONNOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
EX-4.16



 





Exhibit
4.16


CERTIFICATE OF TRUST




OF




NATIONAL CITY PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II




     THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of NATIONAL CITY PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II (the “Trust”), dated as
of January 8, 2008 is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustee, to form a
statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. (Section) 3801 et seq.).



     1. NAME. The name of the statutory trust being formed hereby is National City Preferred
Capital Trust II.



     2. DELAWARE TRUSTEE. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with a
principal place of business in the State of Delaware are as follows:



The Bank of New York (Delaware)

White Clay Center, Route 273

New Castle County

Newark, Delaware 19711

Attention: Corporate Trust




     3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the trustee of the Trust, has executed this
Certificate of Trust as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THE BANK OF NEW YORK (DELAWARE)

Not in its individual capacity, but solely as Delaware

Trustee

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Kristine K. Gullo
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Kristine K. Gullo 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Vice President
Before the Third Division,

November 23, 1942

No. 47746.

#### Protest 974739-G(B) of H. S. Cramer & Co. (Tampa).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The record showed that the corn feed meal in question contains bran and is used for animal feed, not for human consumption, and that it is a “by-product resulting from the extraction of corn meal for human consumption from the corn.” Following *Pena & Flores Importing Co.*v. *United States*(T. D. 49052) the merchandise was held dutiable as “by-product feeds obtained in milling wheat or other cereals” at 10 percent ad valorem under paragraph 730 as claimed.
Exhibit 24.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report  included  in  this  Form  10-K,  into  the  Company's  previously  filed
Registration  Statements  on Forms S-3 (File  Numbers  333-09917,  333-10117 and
333-47098) and Forms S-8 (File Numbers 333-09911, 333-09909 and 333-46086).


                                        /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
                                        -------------------------------
                                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Phoenix, Arizona
  December 15, 2000.
(May 11, 1994)

#### In the Matter of Daniel E. Lyons, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Third-Judicial Department, Petitioner.

[614 NYS2d 328]

—Motion by respon*799dent to vacate order of suspension dated June 21, 1993 (194 AD2d 993) granted, without costs.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Casey, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur.
#### Wedemann & Godknecht, Inc., a/c Skins Trading Corp. *v.*United States

No. 6220.

Invoice dated Prague, Czechoslovakia, January 26, 1939.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 27, 1939.

Entry No. 805294.

(Decided September 25, 1945)

*Eugene R. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), 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:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that the facts and issues involved in the appeal to reappraisement listed in schedule A attached hereto, are the same in all material respects as the facts and issues involved in *F. W. Kuehne Co.*v. *United States,*Reappraisement Decisions 5985 and 6110.

> That on the date of exportation, the price at which the merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Czechoslovakia for home consumption, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, was the invoice value of the merchandise, packed, plus 8 per centum turnover tax.

> That the export value on the date of exportation was not higher than the foreign value.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the record in Reappraisement Decisions 5985 and 6110 be incorporated as a part of the record in this appeal to re-appraisement, and that this appeal to reappraisement is submitted upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value is the invoice value, packed, plus 8 per centum turnover tax.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Dormont Borough, Appellant, *v.*South Pittsburgh Water Company.

*61Submitted April 8, 1936.

Before Kephaet, C. J., Schaefer, Maxey, Drew, Linn and Stern, JJ.

*A. G.*Purdy, Borough Solicitor, for appellant.

*Joseph A.*Beck, for appellee.

May 25, 1936:

Per Curiam,

In 1912 the Water Company entered into a written agreement with the Borough of Dormont providing that it would supply fire hydrants for a period of 20 years at the rate of $20 annually for each hydrant. Beginning January, 1921, the Water Company raised the charge to $50 annually in accordance with a rate schedule duly filed with the Public Service Commission. The borough paid the increased rate under protest, and brought this suit to recover the amount paid in excess of the rate prescribed by the contract. The Water Company filed a demurrer, raising questions of law; the court below sustained the demurrer. This appeal followed.

The question involved is whether rates prescribed by an agreement existing between a municipality and a water company, entered into prior to the enactment of the Public Service Company Law of 1913, are subject to change by the Public Service Commission, or whether *62such change constitutes an impairment of contract within the meaning of article I, section 17, of the state Constitution, and article I, section 10, of the Federal Constitution.

The principles governing a case of this nature are too well settled to require discussion. That appellant was bound to pay the rate prescribed by the schedule filed with the Public Service Commission and not excepted to by it, notwithstanding the fact it varied from that agreed upon in the contract, is a matter which was definitely settled in *Suburban Water Co. v. Oakmont Boro.,*268 Pa. 243; *Scranton v. Pub. Ser. Com.,*268 Pa. 192; *Edgewood Boro. v. Pub. Ser. Com.,*269 Pa. 342; *Springfield Consolidated Water Co. v. Phila.,*285 Pa. 172; *American Aniline Products Co. v. Lock Haven,*288 Pa. 420.

Judgment affirmed.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP96-306-003]

Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

July 25, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 22, 1997, Paiute Pipeline Company (Paiute) 
tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1-A, Sixth Revised Sheet No. 10. Paiute requests 
that the tendered tariff sheet be accepted for filing to become 
effective August 1, 1997.
    Paiute states that the purpose of its filing is to place into 
effect an interim annual rate reduction of $3,423,656 while the 
Commission considers a settlement offer filed by Paiute on July 1, 1997 
in this general rate proceeding. Paiute indicates that as a result of 
its original rate change filing in this proceeding, Paiute is presently 
collecting motion rates, subject to refund, pending the outcome of a 
hearing. Paiute states, however, that its settlement offer would 
resolve all issues in this proceeding, and that it believes that the 
settlement offer is uncontested. Paiute proposes in the instant filing 
to reduce its rates to the settlement rate levels, on an interim basis, 
pending the Commission's decision on the settlement offer.
    In the event that the settlement offer is not approved or made 
effective pursuant to its terms, Paiute requests the right to terminate 
the interim rate reduction on thirty days' notice and resume collection 
of its motion rates during the pendency of this proceeding. Paiute 
states that it will not seek permission to recover from its customers 
the difference between the motion rats and the interim reduced rates 
for the period that the interim reduced rates are in effect.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20124 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
EPA Hearing on Heavy Duty Truck Fuel Efficiency Standards

Thursday, August 6, 9 a.m.

The Palmer House Hilton Hotel

17 East Monroe Street

Chicago, IL. 60603

Jim Arneberg

Anyone stuck in traffic has driven behind one of those rolling smudge pots we 

call diesel trucks. Everyone has seen the black, carcinogenic bile that these vehicles belch 

into our air. Each of us has smelled the noisome stench. A ride through any hazy urban 

core is testimony to how diesel fuel particulate matter pervades our atmosphere. Yet, 

because of oil company and engine manufacturing lobbyists, this sickening expulsion of 

malignant and killing toxins is lightly regulated.

According to the North Texas Council of Governments’ 2008 report, Health 

Concerns Associated with Excessive Idling, diesel exhaust accounts for one quarter of the 

pollution in the air. Kimberly K. Smith of the Alternative Energy Institute in her book, 

Powering Our Future: An Energy Sourcebook for Sustainable Living, states that studies 

from air quality monitors indicate that each year 125,000 cases of cancer and 50,000 

premature deaths occur in the United States as a result of exposure to diesel exhaust. 

That’s 50,000 deaths a year, a number that can be corroborated by a number of studies by

the Natural Resources Defense Council, the American Cancer Society, and Harvard 

University. Fifty thousand are more deaths per year than the traffic fatalities in the United 

States. Fifty thousand are more deaths than battlefield mortalities during the 10-year 

Vietnam War. Fifty thousand annual deaths rivals the carnage of World War II. Why

aren’t we regulating diesel fuel exhaust fumes?
And cancer is not the lone worry. It’s no secret that benzene in diesel exhaust 

causes blood disorders. Lead, cadmium, and mercury cause birth defects and mental 

deficiency. Dioxins are highly toxic and can cause reproductive and developmental 

problems, damage the immune system, interfere with hormones, and also cause cancer.

Other people here today will argue that allowing diesel exhaust to spew unabated 

will protect jobs, but who protects the lives of those 50,000 dead each year? Who protects 

those 125,000 cases of cancer from the horrors of chemotherapy? The savings of 

deregulating diesel fuel aren’t passed on to the consumer or to the truck drivers and 

mechanics who breathe these deadly fumes. The savings of deregulation goes into the 

pockets of oil company board members. In 2014, Exon-Mobile distributed $23.6 billion 

to shareholders. How much of that $23.6 billion did the truck drivers and mechanics see?

Please regulate diesel oil rigidly so that Americans can breath more easily.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 2 0

- 7451

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CARLOS DEMOND ROBINSON , Defendant

- Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 6:03

- cr - 00616

- HMH

- 1 )

Submitted : August 17, 2021 Decided: October 26, 2021

Before MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion

.

Carlos Demond Robinson , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Carlos Demond Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
did not warrant release

. United States v. Robinson , No. 6:03

- cr - 00616

- HMH

- 1 (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 2020) ; s ee United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding that the district court must provide a sufficient explanation to allow for meaningful appellate review of its decision). We deny Robinson’s motion to appoint counse l. 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
P.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

85) IV-E-79 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200811:58:00 AM Sheet 85 of 117 
w 

P.2 

A-90-37 

IV-E-79 

Meeting Notes 

Date: October 24, 2000 

The purpose ofthe meeting was to share views on provisions of a final. No handouts 

provided. Attendee list attached. 

Attachment 
P.3 

7. 'tieeUsii, S 7077 O.1.7 OfiSSOcO 

I /f y- - - t 

Udi&cta. GsLi 

./fvi*A Mdri £ tUoool SL... 

MA02LL2tfm/S.t~n]_ 

tf^3Jc3.K. .^Md.;.a.«tAa..@..^r. LiSbpu... 

r

/S^7^.C7.i^i^hk -2?o.C<V/2^@. _ 

cJu^^ AUTDAUo7hvC£.0U-

~~~ fifimvrr7&rco@avf;7i$j-

:S&^mm&- ^lfcf.O&L 

.0£/J_ O ...&$r___.. 

^M£ml-^iU^_% A££6f. 

(M j^t^h/ k LL. 

... fo> hcuc.art. Ro a./.SaJS5 

i4&_£ 6CX3€/ 

^^l^_L...^.;k?a?.»5. ?j_^__.^6t-- ^i'^^ - ^^^'^^.^f*^'^' 

" . Ltfil -^Kdriors^nr^ ___ __SA_io6 <L .c^dlAea* • (fcfc?_1j£:§__

a 0/ '/ ._L^?-_Lfk,. 

iS(..^'": il. /^_._.<i£.\d ^i/C^ei. 

/
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 3.34

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

      K-111 MAGAZINE CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under and
by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"Corporation"),

      DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

      FIRST: That the Board of Directors of the Corporation duly adopted
resolutions setting forth and declaring advisable a proposed amendment to the
Certificate of Incorporation of said Corporation:

            RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of this Corporation
            be amended by changing the First Article so that, as amended, said
            Article shall be and read as follows: "The name of the Corporation
            is PRIMEDIA Magazines Inc.".

      SECOND: That by written consent, filed with the minutes of the
Corporation, the sole stockholder approved said amendment in accordance with the
provisions of Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

      THIRD: That the aforesaid amendment to the Corporation's Certificate of
Incorporation was duly adopted in accordance with the applicable provisions of
Section 242 and Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said K-111 Magazine Corporation has caused this
Certificate to be executed by Beverly Chell its authorized officer, on this 14th
day of November, 1997.


                                           By
                                             Name: Beverly C. Chell
                                             Title: Vice Chairman & Secretary
No. 48920.

#### Protests 76468-K, etc., of Quong Lee & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel certain items similar to the canned fish in lard involved in Abstract 41800 were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 718 (b) and others substantially the same as the fish in lard with beans the subject of Abstract 42516 were held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1558, as claimed. Protests sustained to this extent.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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 DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Jannett Wang, Vice President of Administration 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:



| | (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/ Jannett Wang                
|                                
|Jannett Wang                    
|Vice President of Administration
|(chief financial officer)       
|August 13, 2003                 

This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.