alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Harold AUDSLEY, Appellant, v. Edward J. STACK, Sheriff of Broward County, Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-428.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 8, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 2, 1973.

David B. Javits of Law Offices of Max P. Engel, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Stephen R. Koons, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal, and on the basis thereof we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been made to clearly appear. The order denying relief on petition for habeas corpus is therefore affirmed. Cf. Schriver v. Tucker, Fla. 1949, 42 So.2d 707.

REED, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
#### James B. Colt, Respondent, *vs.*Joshua LaDue, Appellant.

1. *Pkidence*— lies *gestee*— Possession—Delivery—Statements.—The statements of one in possession of personal property, -when delivering it to another, are admissible in evidence as a part of the res *gestee*and explanatory of the transaction.

*Appeal from Henry County Court of Common Pleas.*

*LaDue &*Fyke, for Appellant.

I. Sherman had sold this property to this appellant, prior to his conversation with Savage. The *ex parte*statements of a vendor of personal property, after the sale and transfer, do not bind the vendee. 35 (Mo., 202; 16 Mo., 242; "Wilson vs. Woodruff, 5 Mo., 40.)

*McBeth &*Price, for Respondent.

I. Sherman’s statements to Savage tend to show possession in himself, and that he was even then offering it for sale.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of replevin for a large ticket wagon. • The plaintiff claimed as purchaser at sheriff’s sale on an execution against one C. M. Sherman, and the defendant claimed title by virtue of a prior unrecorded mortgage for a debt due from said Sherman.

The material issue tried below was, whether the defendant took and retained possession of the wagon at the time he received the unrecorded mortgage. Each party gave evidence endeavoring to prove his theory of the case. One of plaintiff’s witnesses testified, in effect, that Sherman left Clinton, *487where he lived, and, at the time he left-he had the wagon in dispute in his possession, and delivered the same with another wagon to witness to keep, and directed him to sell them; that witness took possession and sold one of the wagons, and the wagon in dispute was afterwards levied on by the sheriff.

The defendant objected to what Sherman told the witness about selling the wagon, *¿so.*But the court overruled the' objection, and the defendant excepted.

The case was submitted to the court, and no declarations of law were asked or given. The court found for the plaintiff, and entered judgment in his favor. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled.

The only material point is, whether the statement made by Sherman, when h'e delivered the wagon to the witness, was proper evidence. It was objected to as tending to impair the title held by the defendant by virtue of the unrecorded mortgage. But this evidence had no reference to the title created by the mortgage. Sherman had or assumed to have the actual possession of the wagon, and, in delivering it to the witness, made the statement in question. It was a part of the *res gestse,*and explanatory of the transaction between him and the witness, and as such proper evidence. A mere delivery of the wagon without stating the purpose would have been utterly senseless.

On the question of possession the evidence was conflicting. There was sufficient however to support the verdict, and we are not at liberty to disturb it.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

The other judges concur.
Consumer Sentinel gives you FREE access to fraud reports to build your 

investigation and your law enforcement network.

• Search the database of millions of reports about scams and rip-offs, identity 

theft, Do Not Call Registry violations, and more.

• Find fraud reports from around the world or around the corner. 

• Get reports on recent surges and alerts of new reports on specific targets

or practices.

• Connect with other law enforcement agencies investigating the same targets. 

More than 2,800 federal, state, local, and international law enforcement users 

have access to Consumer Sentinel.

Consumer Sentinel gives you investigative tools to work more efficiently 

and effectively.

• Jump into the data to find targets and witnesses. Or discover trends with:

• Automatic reports on topics you want to spotlight 

• Graph Analytics to connect the dots

• Reports on recent complaint surges

• Alerts of new complaints on specific targets or practices

• Word clouds

• Access complaints from 45 data contributors, including:

• Federal agencies and 25 states

• All North American Better Business Bureaus

• Businesses like Microsoft’s CyberCrime Center, Western Union, 

MoneyGram, and more 

• Save data in your own 100 megabyte online storage center

A free and secure online investigative tool from the

Federal Trade Commission.

Learn more at

ftc.gov/sentinel

To join, visit

Register.ConsumerSentinel.gov

FTC CONSUMER SENTINEL NETWORK
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 10, 2019

No. 04-19-00500-CV

ESTATE OF BRADLEY KEITH JOHNSON,

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PC0180

The Honorable Veronica Vasquez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice 

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice 

Beth Watkins, Justice 

On December 3, 2019, appellant filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing 

Regarding Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED on this 10th day of December, 2019.

PER CURIAM 

 ATTESTED TO: _______________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

 Clerk of Court
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Kenneth T.Smith, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Family Dollar Stores,Inc., (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, tomy knowledge:

·                  theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 2, 2007,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

·                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date:  July 11, 2007
| /s/ Kenneth T. Smith |                                                                                 |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 | Kenneth T. Smith                                                                     |
|                 | Senior Vice President - Chief Financial Officer   (Principal Financial Officer) |
|                      |                                                                                      |  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Family DollarStores, Inc., and will be retained by Family Dollar Stores, Inc., and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
June 26, 2015

Ms. Kristen Brumbaugh

Blackhound Creative Werks

328 Bluestem Drive Elgin, SC 29045

Dear Ms. Brumbaugh:

This letter is to inform you that we are unabl e to process your request for an exemption from part 21; §§ 45.23, 91.7, 91.9, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151, 91.203, subpart E

91.401

− 91.417 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regula tions (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your April 20, 2015, exemption re quest on behalf of Blackhound Creative Werks into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1352), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption would not adve rsely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equa l to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or ar guments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any fu rther, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requi res you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days , we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additiona l time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7342** 

JEROME JULIUS BROWN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. STATE COMPTROLLER OF MARYLAND; PETER FRANCHOT, Comptroller , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Ellen L

. Hollander , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 01881

- ELH )

Submitted : February 4, 2013 Decided: February 8, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jerome Julius Brown , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jerome Julius Brown appeals the district court ’s order dismissing his civil comp laint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Brown v. State Comptroller of Md. , No. 1:12

- cv - 01881

- ELH (D. Md. filed June 28,
2012; entered June 29, 2012). We d ispense 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
#### Leroy R. ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-692.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 14, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
#### The CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH, etc., Petitioner, v. TONA-RAMA, INC., etc., et al., Respondents, and State of Florida, Intervenor.

No. 40899.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 29, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 244 So.2d 192.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7466 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to remove the Emancipation Monument from Lincoln Park in the District of Columbia, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 1, 2020 

Ms. NORTON (for herself and Ms. GABBARD) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to remove the Emancipation Monument from Lincoln Park in the District 

of Columbia, 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 ‘‘Emancipation Statue 

5 Removal Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF EMANCIPATION MONUMENT. 

7 (a) REMOVAL.—The Secretary of the Interior shall 

8 ensure that the Emancipation Monument is removed from 

9 Lincoln Park in the District of Columbia. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7466 IH

1 (b) DONATION.—The Secretary shall donate the 

2 Emancipation Monument to a museum or other similar 

3 entity. The recipient of the Emancipation Monument may 

4 not store, display, or exhibit the monument outside. If the 

5 monument is stored, displayed, or exhibited outside, own6 ership of the monument will revert back to the Federal 

7 Government. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Herman SMITH, Jr. v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 54282.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1974.

In re: Herman Smith, Jr. applying for Writs of Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus and, other Remedial Writs.

Writ granted in part and an evidentiary hearing is ordered as to allegation that relator was mentally incompetent at time of guilty plea, because of medication. In all other respects, the writ is denied. These matters have been heard in U. S. District Court.
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 Annual Report of Hydron Technologies, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12,
2010, hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition, and results of operations of the Registrant.   HYDRON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. /s/: Richard Banakus Richard Banakus Interim President, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer August 12, 2010
EXHIBIT 23



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report incorporated by reference in this
Form 10-K for the year ended January 25, 1997, into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 33-
83350) and on Form S-8 (No. 33-37624, No. 33-43916, No. 33-55910,
No. 33-92500, and No. 333-04735).



/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


St. Louis, Missouri,
April 24, 1997
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE MIKE O’DONNELL and ANDREW CAMERON

____________________

2011-1610 (Serial No. 09/245,798)

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

T IMOTHY E. S IEGEL , Timothy E. Siegel Patent Law, PLLC, of Bellevue, Washington, argued for appellants.

F ARHEENA Y. R ASHEED , Associate Solicit or, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on

the brief were R AYMOND T. C HEN , Solicitor and J OSEPH G.

P ICCOLO , Associate Solicitor.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (B RYSON

, D YK , and M OORE

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

May 11, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1357-1358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-481]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. AB-55 (Sub-No. 500)]


CSX Transportation, Inc.--Abandonment--in Barbour, Randolph, 
Pocahontas, and Webster Counties, WV

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of findings.

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

[[Page 1358]]

SUMMARY: The Board has issued a certificate and decision authorizing 
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), to abandon that portion of its rail 
line extending between milepost BUI-28.40 at Elkins, WV, and milepost 
BUK-121.7 at Bergoo, WV, subject to environmental and historic 
preservation conditions if there is salvage. The transaction also was 
exempted from the offer of financial assistance and public use 
procedures of 49 U.S.C. 10904 and 10905.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The abandonment certificate will become effective on 
January 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beryl Gordon, (202) 927-5660. [TDD for 
the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 
104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (1995) (ICCTA), abolished the Interstate Commerce 
Commission (ICC) and transferred certain functions and proceedings to 
the Surface Transportation Board (Board) effective on January 1, 1996. 
Section 204(c) of the ICCTA provides, in general, that, if a court 
remands a suit against the ICC that was pending on the date of that 
legislation and involves functions retained by the ICCTA, subsequent 
proceedings related to the case shall proceed under the applicable law 
and regulations in effect at the time of the subsequent proceedings. 
The functions at issue in this proceeding were retained and are now 
found at 49 U.S.C. 10903-05. Thus, the provisions of current 49 U.S.C. 
10903-05 apply to this proceeding on remand.
    Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. To 
purchase a copy of the full decision, write to, call, or pick up in 
person from: DC News & Data, Inc., Room 2229, 1201 Constitution Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 289-4357/4359. [Assistance 
for the hearing impared is available through TDD services (292) 927-
5721.

    Decided: December 31, 1996.

    By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Simmons, 
Commissioner Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-481 Filed 1-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 WindsorTech, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc
Sherman, Chief Executive 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 Act of 1934; and


         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


                                         /s/ Marc Sherman
                                         Marc Sherman
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         August 19, 2002
1 

### Whalen, Marilyn

From: Poentis, Aaron Y CIV NAVFAC HI, EV <aaron.poentis@navy.mil>

Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:25 PM

To: roxanne.kwan@doh.hawaii.gov; Richard Ta kaba (richard.takaba@doh.hawaii.gov)

Cc: steven.chang@doh.hawaii.gov; st uart.yamada@doh.hawaii.gov; Linder, Steven; Pallarino,

Bob; Lovgren, Andrew C LCDR, NAVSUP FLCP H C700; Shimabuku, June T. CIV NAVFAC

HI, EV4; Kishaba, Raelynn I CIV NAVFAC H I, EV4; Tsutsui, Bruc e O CIV NAVFAC HI,

OPHE3; Mizuno, Arleen M CIV NAVFAC HI, PRJ412

Subject: RED HILL STATUS REPORT - April 21, 2015

Signed By: aaron.poentis@navy.mil

Importance: High

Hi Richard/Roxanne:

Attached are the updated information for the weekly progress report from Navy Region Hawaii, and the Fleet Logistic

Center Pearl Harbor for the week of April 21, 2015. In a process to ease reading, only sections with changes will be

annotated.

1. Preliminary Work Plan

Action complete.

2. Release Response Action Items (initiate immediately, complete as soon as practicable)

a. Action 1

‐ Provide a schedule for the ventilation of Tank 5 and an estimated date to commence the investigation

of release point(s) within Tank 5.

Action complete.

b. Action 2

‐ The rate of vertical migration for the released JP

‐ 8 free product is unknown. Information from the

previously collected basalt cores could be used for initial modeling of vertical migration. This information is necessary to

protect drinking water resources from petroleum contamination. Prepare models for petroleum JP

‐ 8 releases of 10,000,

20,000 and 30,000 gallons from points at 25% intervals from the bottom to the top of Tank 5.

No change.

c. Action 3

‐ Removal of petroleum free product from the area outside the tank will reduce downward migration of

the released JP

‐ 8 free product. Characterization of the free product plume and recovery of free product with increased

monitoring are required to address this plume.

No change.

d. Action 4

‐ Additional studies and procedures are required to address the potential and impact of any future

releases from the USTs within the Complex. This will require new financial and personnel resources to complete.

Funding for the preliminary work plan and all necessary following work is critical.

d.(1) Groundwater Monitoring Wells

No change.

d.(2) Site Characterization2 No change.

d.(3) AOC/SOW

Discussions are ongoing.

d.(4) Request for Additional Information

No change.

d.(5) BWS/USGS Groundwater Flow Study

The USGS will install water level monitors at three (3) outside tunnel wells during the week of April 27, 2015. Water

levels will be monitored for about one month.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

v/r,

Aaron