alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Henry Westhus, Respondent, *vs.*Frank H. Springmeyer, *et*al., Appellants.

1. *Practice, civil*— Trial—Instructions—Answer—Mehanic’s *lien.*— Instructions in a trial in a mechanic’s lien suit, alleging that the work was done under two contracts, and that the first is barred, although the answer had admitted that all the work was done under one con tract, are inadmissible.

*Appeal from St. Louis Circuit*Court.

*Hitchcoclc. Lxiblce and*Playeo’, for Appellants.

Tlie plaintiff in his petition declared upon two distinct contracts, one being express and the other implied.

The express contract (the item of $371,) was done more than four months before the filing of the lien, and the plaintiff could not have a lien for that item. (See Livermore vs. Wright, 33 Mo., 31.)

*Finkelnburg a/nd Passieur,*for Respondent.

The pleadings in the cause, admit that the demand of plaintiff arose out of but one contract.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action by the plaintiff as sub-contractor, on a mechanic’s lien. The petition alleges that the plaintiff agi'eed with the original contractor to do all the painting, glazing, and furnish all the materials necessary thereto, on a house for defendant Boehmen; for certain specified items *of*said work, he was to be paid three hundred and seventy-one dollars, and for the remainder, being extra work performed in completion of the contract, he would charge reasonable prices, making a total of $413.50. That he completed the work under the contract on the 12th of September, 1870, and within four months thereafter filed his lien, &c.

The answer denies that the work was completed within four months before the filing of the lieu, and denies that the lien contained a true statement of the account, &c., and sets up the further defense that the contractor had given his note to the plaintiff, which had been taken in full satisfaction of the debt.

*221The plaintiff replied, denying the new matter, and denying that the note was taken in satisfaction, and offered to deliver up the note.

Upon the trial the plaintiff gave evidence conducing to prove this case in all'particulars. The defendants claimed that there were two contracts, one for the $371 dollars, and another for the extra work, and that the work for the $371 having been furnished more than four months before tbe filing of the lien was not covered by tbe lien, and the defendants asked instructions presenting this view of the case, which were refused. The instructions were properly refused. The answer admitted that the work was all done under one contract, and there was no ground upon which to base the instruction.

This point seems to have been an after-thought not raised by the pleadings, and yet it appears to have been the main ground relied on at the trial, and *still*there was no proof of two independent contracts.

The case seems to have been fairly put to the jury by the instructions, and tbe verdict and judgment were for tbe right party, and I see no error in the record.

Judgment affirmed.

Judge Sherwood absent. The other Judges concur.
#### BELL’S RESTAURANT, INC., Appellant, v. Charles R. WILLIAMS and Jessie J. Elsberry, Appellees.

No. 69-450.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 31, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.4

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 Dominos, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 18, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. David Mounts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:



| | 1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ L. David MountsL. David MountsChief Financial Officer


Dated: July 19, 2006

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 Dominos, Inc. and will be retained by Dominos, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,002
<ALLOWANCES>                                        83
<INVENTORY>                                      1,122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,138
<PP&E>                                           1,612
<DEPRECIATION>                                     781
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,061
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,093
<OTHER-SE>                                       (546)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,313
<SALES>                                            877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,916
<CGS>                                              616
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,673
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   801
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  38
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    305
<INCOME-TAX>                                        93
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                212
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       212
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
#### Woods *v.*Heron, Appellant.

*Broker*— Real *Estate Broker*— Commissions—Licenses.

A person, suing for commissions on a sale of real estate will not be barred from recovery by reason of not having had a broker’s license where there is no evidence that he was doing business as a real estate broker at the date of the contract set up by him, and it appears that the contract was a special one for the sale of a particular piece of real estate.

Argued Oct. 18, 1910.

Appeal, No. 41, Oct. T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Allegheny Co., Third T., 1907, No. 133, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William L. Woods v. John B. Heron, Jr.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

*626January 3, 1911:

Assumpsit to recover commissions for sale of real estate. Before Carnahan, J.

The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

*Errors assigned*were various rulings and instructions of the court.

*John S. Ferguson,*for appellant.

*John P. Hunter,*with him *Walter Lyon,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

The subject of the controversy at the trial was the plaintiff’s right to commissions for the sale of real estate. The grounds of defense to the action were that the plaintiff was a real estate broker and had not obtained a license, that he was not employed to make the sale, but was acting for a trust company in whose real estate department he was employed and that tjie sale was not effected through his agency or that of the company. The first ground of defense was eliminated by the court’s instruction to the jury that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain a finding that the plaintiff was engaged in the business of a real estate broker, and that he could recover if he effected the sale as alleged by him. We find' no evidence that he was doing business as a real estate broker at the date of the contract set up by him. The contract was a special one for the sale of a particular piece of real estate and a license was not necessary to give it validity: Chadwick v. Collins, 26 Pa. 138; Black v. Snook, 204 Pa. 119. The remaining grounds of defense gave rise to questions of fact only, and they were properly submitted. We find no merit in any of the assignments.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ ) SHARON ANZALDI, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 14-0658 (ESH) ) FRANCISCO QUINTANT, ) ) Respondent. ) _________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Sharon Anzaldi’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Apr. 14, 2014 [ECF No. 1].) Petitioner is presently in federal cu stody at the Federal Medical Center (“FMC”) in Lexington, Kentucky, pursuant to a j udgment of the United States Dist rict Court for the Northern District of Illinoi s. (Pet. at 1; see also Judgment, United States v. Anzaldi , No. 1:11-cr-00820-1, Jan. 15, 2014.) She names the warden of FMC Le xington as the respondent to her petition. A habeas petition under § 2241 must be file d in the federal court with territorial jurisdiction over petitione r’s immediate custodian. Rumsfeld v. Padilla , 542 U.S. 426, 439, 124 (2004). FMC Lexington and its warden are locat ed within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States District Court for th e Eastern District of Kentucky. See Federal Bureau of Prisons, FMC Lexington, http://www.bop.gov /locations/institutions /lex/ (last visite d April 24, 2014) (identifying Eastern District of Kentucky as the judicial distri ct encompassing FMC Lexington). Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner’s habeas petition.-2- A court shall transfer a habeas petition to a court with proper territo rial jurisdiction when such transfer is “in the interest s of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631; see, e.g ., Bailey v. Fulwood , 780 F. Supp. 2d 20, 26-27 (D.D.C. 2011). As a transfer would avoid the inefficiency of dismissing this action and requiring petitioner to refile it, the Court finds it in the interest of justice to transfer this action to the proper court. See Stern v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 601 F. Supp. 2d 303, 306–07 (D.D.C. 2009) (a transfer is in the interest of justice where “it would be time-consuming and potentially costly” for a petitioner to refile his petition in the proper court). Accordingly, the above-captioned case will be transferred to the Un ited States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/ ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE United States District Judge Date: April 24, 2014
SUBSIDIARIES AND VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIES OF THE COMPANY
 PLACE OF INCORPORATION1. China Online Housing Technology Corporation
    
    Cayman Islands2. CRIC (China) Information Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    British Virgin Islands3. Portal Overseas Limited
    
    British Virgin Islands4. Portal Holding Limited
    
    Hong Kong5. China Online Housing (Hong Kong) Co. Limited
    
    Hong Kong6. China Real Estate Business Network Technology Limited
    
    Hong Kong7. Shanghai ShineLend Property Management Limited
    
    PRC8. Shanghai CRIC Information Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    PRC9. Shanghai Dehu PR Consulting Co., Ltd.
    
    PRC10. Shenzhen Fangyou Software Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    PRC11. Shanghai Tian Zhuo Advertising Co., Ltd.
    
    PRC12. Shanghai Landpro Advertising Design and Consulting Co., Ltd.
    
    PRC13. Guangzhou Integrated Residential Building Industry Facility Co., Ltd.
    
    PRC14. Wushi Consolidated (Beijing) Advertising Media Co., Ltd.
    
    PRC15. Shanghai SINA Leju Information Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    PRC16. Beijing Yisheng Leju Information Services Co., Ltd.
    
    PRC17. Guangzhou Real Estate Business Network Software Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    PRC
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****FYI, minority resources ...money & more [electronic resource].**
 
SuDoc Number:HE 1.70/2:

Item Number:0445-M-06 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000872779
 
2012: May 23 | Jun 0614 | Aug 29 | Sep 051219
2013: Mar 13| Apr 041017 | Jul 17 | Sep 25 | Nov 20
2014: Feb 12| Jul 09
 
April 1, 2020
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–011 2007

110th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 110–75 

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY 

WITH RESPECT TO IRAN 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION THAT THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT 

TO IRAN ORIGINALLY DECLARED ON NOVEMBER 14, 1979, BY 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12170, IS TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT BEYOND 

NOVEMBER 14, 2007, PURSUANT TO 50 U.S.C. 1622(d) 

NOVEMBER 9, 2007.—Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 

ordered to be printed 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HOUSEDOCE:\Seals\Congress.#13

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HOUSEDOC
(1) 

To the Congress of the United States: 

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 

1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the 

President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the 

Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, 

I have sent the enclosed notice to the Federal Register for publication, stating that the Iran emergency declared in Executive Order 

12170 on November 14, 1979, is to continue in effect beyond November 14, 2007. 

Our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the 

process of implementing the January 19, 1981 agreements with 

Iran is still underway. For these reasons, I have determined that 

it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, with respect to Iran, beyond November 14, 2007. 

GEORGE W. BUSH. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 8, 2007. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HOUSEDOC

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HOUSEDOC
(3) 

NOTICE

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO

IRAN

On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the President 

declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the 

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–

1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States 

constituted by the situation in Iran. Because our relations with 

Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the process of implementing the January 19, 1981 agreements with Iran is still underway, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, must 

continue in effect beyond November 14, 2007. Therefore, consistent 

with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 

1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year this national emergency with 

respect to Iran. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. 

GEORGE W. BUSH. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 8, 2007. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HOUSEDOC
# 2017 Current Law
Exhibit 99.4

 

**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 annual report of Cenovus Energy Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ivor M. Ruste, Executive Vice-President & 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. |

 

 
| February 20, 2013 |                                                          |
|------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |                                                          |
|                   |                                                          |
|                   | /s/   Ivor M. Ruste                                           |
|                   | Ivor   M. Ruste                                               |
|                   | Executive   Vice-President & Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

12

----
#### Harvey H. GARNER, Appellant, v. BOULEVARD NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, a United States banking association, Appellee.

No. 69-827.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 23, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1970.

Feibelman, Friedman, Hyman & Britton, Ft. Lauderdale, and Herbert Stettin, Miami, for appellant.

Paul, Landy, Beiley & Bartel, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 679.9-206 Fla.Stat, F.S.A. and Baraban v. Manatee National Bank of Bradenton, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 341.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30079]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-25-001]


West Texas Gas, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

November 10, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 6, 1997, West Texas Gas, Inc. (WTG) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective December 1, 
1997:

Second Revised Sheet No. 22

    WTG states that this tariff sheet was inadvertently omitted from 
its October 31, 1997 Notice of Change in Rates. According to WTG, 
although the redlined version of Second Revised Sheet No. 22 was 
submitted with the filing, the clean version was omitted. WTG states 
that the only change on this tariff sheets was the elimination of a 
portion of its Purchased Gas Adjustment clause, as explained in its 
transmittal letter.
    Any persons desiring to protest said 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 the 
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. 97-30079 Filed 11-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Willie Charles CONLEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44731.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 11, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 285 So.2d 457.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30442]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-526-002]


Mississippi River Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

November 14, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 7, 1997, Mississippi River 
Transmission Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing Second Substitute 
Third Revised Sheet No. 9 as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised 
Volume No. 1 to be effective October 25, 1997.
    MRT states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
letter order issued in this docket on October 24, 1997.
    Any person desiring to protect this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protects must be filed as 
provided in 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. 97-30442 Filed 11-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30469]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Army Science Board; Notice of Open Meeting

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee Meeting:

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB).
    Date of Meeting: 18 & 19 November 1997.
    Time of Meeting: 0830-1630, 18 Nov 97; 0830-1430, 19 Nov 97.
    Place: Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Maryland
    Agenda: The Army Science Board (ASB) Issue Group Study on ``Army 
Avionics Modernization Methodologies'' will meet for briefings and 
discussions. The meetings will be open to the public. Any interested 
person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the 
committee at the time and in the manner permitted by the committee. 
For further information, please call our office at (703) 695-0781.
Wayne Joyner,
Program Support Specialist, Army Science Board.
[FR Doc. 97-30469 Filed 11-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M