alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State of Missouri to use of Julius Bolenius, Plaintiff in Error, *vs.*William W. Waters, *et*al., Defendants in Error.

1. State to use of Hunter vs. Maulsby, 53 Mo., 500, affirmed.

*Error to New Madrid Circuit Court.*

*Louis*Houck, for Plaintiff in Error.

I. In this case the parties to the contract are sued by the administrator *de bonis non;*hence, this case does not fall within the words of Sess. Acts 1865-6, p. 85.

II. The Circuit Court based its decision upon Dodson vs. Scroggs, *él*Mo., 285, but that case does not bear out the court’s ruling.

*R. Ji.*Hatcher, for Defendants in Error.

Vories, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is similar in all of its material features to the case of “ The State to the use of Isaac Hunter, Adm’r of Kobert B. Hill, deceased, against Lemuel Maulsby, William Edmondson, Lewis Purcell and Edward H. Coleman, decided at the present term of this court, except that the petition is more specific in its allegations, and the judgment is rendered against the relator in his representative capacity, and for the reasons given in that case, the judgment is reversed and the cause-remanded.

The other judges concur, except Judge Sherwood, who is absent.
#### William G. HOUSTON, Appellant, v. H & R BLOCK, INC., d/b/a H & R Block, Appellee.

No. 72-881.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 5, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1973.

Horton & Perse, Miami, for appellant.

Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings, Miami, and Walter S. Holland, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Ekhoff v. Hoffman, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 641; Levine v. Knowles, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 217; Wheeler v. Nelson, Fla.App.1969, 229 So.2d 11.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7586 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7586

 To temporarily extend participation in the 8(a) program of the Small 
            Business Administration, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 2020

 Mr. Evans (for himself and Mr. Spano) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To temporarily extend participation in the 8(a) program of the Small 
            Business Administration, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PARTICIPATION IN 8(A) PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration shall ensure that a small business concern participating 
in the program established under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act 
(15 U.S.C. 637) on or before March 13, 2020, may elect to extend such 
participation by a period of 1 year, regardless of whether such concern 
previously elected to suspend participation in such program pursuant to 
guidance of the Administrator.
    (b) Emergency Rulemaking Authority.--Not later than 15 days after 
the date of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall issue 
regulations to carry out this section without regard to the notice 
requirements under section 553(b) of title 5, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
#### Harvey Leon PRATER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-387.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 7, 1971.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Leone v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 404; Daniels v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 405; and Stacy v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 189.

LILES, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
THFF-2013.12.31-10-K EX-10.3










EXHIBIT 10.3 -  Schedule of Director Compensation


Compensation of Directors. Each director of the Corporation is also a director of First Financial Bank (“FFB”), the lead subsidiary bank of the Corporation, and receives directors’ fees from each organization. For 2014 a director of the Corporation and FFB will receive a fee of $750 for each board meeting attended.


Non-employee directors also receive a fee for meetings attended of the Audit Committee of $1,000, the Compensation Committee of $1,000, the Governance/Nominating Committee of $500, and the Loan Discount Committee of $500. Each director also will receive from a quarterly director’s fee of $11,250. No non-employee director served as a director of any other subsidiary of the Corporation.


Directors of the Corporation and FFB who are not yet 70 years of age may participate in a deferred director’s fee program at each institution. Under this program, a director may defer $6,000 of his or her director’s fees each year over a five-year period. When the director reaches the age of 65 or age 70, the director may elect to receive payments over a ten-year period. The amount of the deferred fees is used to purchase an insurance product which funds these payments. Each year from the initial date of deferral until payments begin at age 65 or 70, the Corporation accrues a non-cash expense which will equal in the aggregate the amount of the payments to be made to the director over the ten-year period. The Corporation expects that the cash surrender value of the insurance policy will offset the amount of expenses accrued. If a director fails for any reason other than death to serve as a director during the entire five-year period, or the director fails to attend at least 60 regular or special meetings, the amount to be received at age 65 or 70, as applicable, will be pro-rated appropriately.


Directors also may receive compensation previously accrued under the Corporation’s 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan, no other benefits may be accrued under this plan. Under this plan, directors received 90, 100 or 110 percent of the director’s “award amount” if the Corporation and FFB attained certain goals established by the Corporation’s Compensation Committee. See Exhibit 10.3 to this Form 10-K for a description of this plan.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0409 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KATHERINE ANNE PROCTOR,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 16, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 6 2024

08/06/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0409
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 United
States Code § 1350 and

Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



The Undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
Federal-Mogul Corporation (the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof 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 such annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date: July 30, 2004



By:

/s/ Robert S. Miller, Jr.Robert S. Miller, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ G. Michael LynchG. Michael LynchChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>







                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First Republic
Corporation of America (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Jonathan
P. Rosen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

       (1)the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.


By:        /s/ Johnathan P. Rosen
       --------------------------
Name:   Jonathan P. Rosen
Chief Executive Officer
February 18, 2003
#### PIZZA PALACE OF MIAMI, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Clifford RUSSELL, S. W. Raulerson and Bernard Schoninger, a co-partnership doing business as Palm Springs Investment Co. (not Inc.), Appellees.

No. 70-328.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 8, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7785 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain employment and 

reemployment rights to members of the National Guard who perform 

State active duty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2020 

Mr. ROSE of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain 

employment and reemployment rights to members of the 

National Guard who perform State active duty. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7785 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN EMPLOYMENT AND 

2 REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS TO MEMBERS OF 

3 THE NATIONAL GUARD WHO PERFORM STATE 

4 ACTIVE DUTY. 

5 Section 4303 of title 38, United States Code, is 

6 amended in paragraph (13) by inserting ‘‘State active 

7 duty,’’ after ‘‘full-time National Guard duty,’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 32 Section 1350 Certification
 
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Don J. McGrath




---



##### 



Exhibit 32 Section 1350 Certification
 
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Douglas C. Grigsby
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 7, 2014

No. 04-13-00441-CV

RIO GRANDE H2O GUARDIAN and Albert Furney Muller, Jr.,

Appellants

v.

ROBERT MULLER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD, DBA Robert Muller LTD and Rosetta 

Stone, LLC,

Appellees

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CVQ001860D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The court has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing En Banc, and the motion 

is DENIED.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

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

court on this 7th day of March, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED
               FROM FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
               IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                 JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                            14,417
<SECURITIES>                      22,483
<RECEIVABLES>                     31,617
<ALLOWANCES>                       2,602
<INVENTORY>                        9,373
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  58,588
<PP&E>                             8,333
<DEPRECIATION>                     3,890
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    83,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             13,039
<BONDS>                                0
<COMMON>                              87
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                        70,156
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      83,283
<SALES>                           81,467
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  81,467
<CGS>                             36,145
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     63,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   21,527
<INCOME-TAX>                       7,241
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               14,286
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                      14,286
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       1.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                       1.57


</TABLE>
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 Network CN Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1 for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Earnest Leung, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Earnest LeungEarnest LeungChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)




June 24, 2011




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Network CN Inc. and will be retained by Network CN Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7398 

To establish the Western Emergency Refined Petroleum Products Reserve. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 29, 2020 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To establish the Western Emergency Refined Petroleum 

Products Reserve. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF WESTERN EMERGENCY 

4 REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS RESERVE. 

5 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of Defense, 

6 acting through the Director of the Defense Logistics 

7 Agency, shall establish a reserve, to be known as the 

8 ‘‘Western Emergency Refined Petroleum Products Re9 serve’’ (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Reserve’’), to 

10 store refined petroleum products that may be made avail11 able to military and governmental entities during an emerVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:45 Jul 22, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7398.IH H7398

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7398 IH

1 gency situation, as determined appropriate by the Sec2 retary of Defense. 

3 (b) USE OF RESERVE.—In accordance with sub4 section (a), the Secretary of Defense may make refined 

5 petroleum products stored in the Reserve available to 

6 other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and 

7 any other public entity determined appropriate by the Sec8 retary of Defense. 

9 (c) LOCATION.—The Reserve shall— 

10 (1) be located in the western region of the 

11 United States; 

12 (2) utilize salt cavern storage; and 

13 (3) be in immediate proximity to existing pipe14 line, rail, and highway infrastructure. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORTS, INC.**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY**

 

Atlanta Motor Speedway, Inc., a Georgia corporation. 

 

Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc., a Tennessee corporation. 

 

Charlotte Motor Speedway, LLC a/k/a Lowe’s Motor Speedway at Charlotte (“LMS”), a NorthCarolina limited liability company. 

 

600 Racing, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of LMS),a North Carolina corporation. 

 

INEX Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of LMS), aNorth Carolina corporation. 

 

Las Vegas Motor Speedway, Inc. (“LVMS”), aDelaware corporation. 

 

Nevada Speedway, LLC d/b/a Las Vegas Motor Speedway (a whollyowned subsidiary of LVMS), a Delaware limited liability company. 

 

Speedway Funding, LLC(a wholly owned subsidiary of LVMS), a Delaware limited liability company. 

 

Oil-ChemResearch Corporation, an Illinois corporation. 

 

SMI Systems, LLC, a Nevada limitedliability company. 

 

SPR, Inc. (“SPR”), a Delaware corporation. 

 

Speedway Properties Company, LLC (“SPC”) (a wholly owned subsidiary of SPR), a Delawarelimited liability company. 

 

Speedway Media, LLC d/b/a Racing Country USA (a wholly ownedsubsidiary of SPC), a North Carolina limited liability company. 

 

Speedway Sonoma, LLCa/k/a Infineon Raceway (a wholly owned subsidiary of SPR), a Delaware limited liability company. 

 

Speedway Systems, LLC d/b/a SMI Properties (“SMIP”) (a wholly owned subsidiary of SPR), a North Carolina limited liability company. 

 

Speedway TBA, Inc. d/b/a North Carolina Speedway, a North Carolina corporation. 

 

Motorsports by Mail, LLC (a subsidiary of SMIP), a North Carolina limited liability company. 

 

TSI Management Company, LLC (“TSI”) (a wholly owned subsidiary of SMIP), a North Carolina limited liability company. 

 

Trackside Holding Corporation (“THC”) (a wholly owned subsidiary of SMIP), a North Carolinacorporation. 

 

SMI Trackside, LLC (a subsidiary of THC), a North Carolina limitedliability company. 

 

Texas Motor Speedway, Inc., a Texas corporation.
#### V. B. GRIGG and Mary B. Grigg, his wife, Appellants, v. Katherine GATT et al., Appellees.

No. R-246.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 2, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1973.

*370Charles Tindell of Elliott, Tindell & Armstrong, Daytona Beach, for appellants.

Wilson W. Wright, Tallahassee, for ap-pellees.

SPECTOR, Judge.

Appellants seek reversal of an adverse final judgment in a quiet title action filed by them against appellees. The appellees, Clyde E. Hart and Victoria Hart, counterclaimed to quiet title to the subject property in them, and the lower court ruled in accordance with their prayer.

The subject property was owned by one Katherine Gatt, an adjudicated incompetent. On April 22, 1964, she deeded the property to one Jirah Buck. That deed was recorded April 27, 1964. On April 24, 1964, two days after the deed from Gatt, Buck and his wife conveyed the property to the Griggs, appellants here. That deed was recorded May 13, 1964.

On June 19, 1964, one Burton Cronin, duly appointed guardian of Katherine Gatt, conveyed the subject property to the Harts by deed which was recorded June 30, 1964. On the same date, letters of guardianship issued in the State of Michigan naming Burton Cronin as guardian of Katherine Gatt was recorded in Volusia County.

In essence, the dispute between these parties centers upon the validity of the title to the subject property which inured to each as a result of their respective deeds. The appellees contend that since the trial court not only found that Katherine Gatt was in fact incompetent prior to execution by her of the deed to appellants’ predecessors in title, but also found that appellants were placed on notice that the disputed property was owned by a mentally incompetent person, the court was correct in holding that appellees’ title to the property was good since it derived from a valid deed. We agree and affirm.

The law of this jurisdiction has long been that a deed purporting to convey lands which is executed by an owner of unsound mind conveys no title. Crozier v. Ange, 85 Fla. 120, 95 So. 426. In Hassey v. Williams (1937), 127 Fla. 734, 174 So. 9, the court held that if a grantee under a deed from an incompetent had knowledge of the grantor’s insanity, the deed was voidable. In the case at bar, the court found on conflicting evidence that appellants had notice of Gatt’s incompetency.

In view of the findings of fact made by the” lower court and the applicable principles of law referred to above, the judgment reviewed herein must be

Affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Joseph J. Simons, Chairman 

Noah Joshua Phillips 

Rohit Chopra

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter

Christine S. Wilson

In the Matter of

Peabody Energy Corporation, 

a public company; Docket No. 9391 

and 

Arch Coal, Inc., 

a public company.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

This matter comes before the Commission on Complaint Counsel and Respondents’ Joint Motion 

to Dismiss Complaint. The Joint Motion states that Respondents Peabody Energy Corporation and Arch 

Coal, Inc. have informed Complaint Counsel that they have terminated their proposed acquisition and that 

Peabody has withdrawn its Hart-Scott-Rodino Notification and Report Forms for that transaction and has 

no intent to refile. Having considered the Joint Motion, we have determined that it should be granted. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Complaint dated October 15, 

2020, is GRANTED and the Complaint in this proceeding is dismissed without prejudice. 

By the Commission. 

April J. Tabor

Acting Secretary

SEAL:

ISSUED: October 16, 2020