alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FRANZEN MOTOR CO. et al. v. WENTZ

No. 10629.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

Oct. 27, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 1, 1938.

LeRoy McCall, of Beaumont, for appellants.

No brief filed for appellee.

CODY, Justice.

This is an appeal from the County Court of Chambers County. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed on these considerations :

1. We know of no rule which denies to a defendant the right to urge a claim to recover on the basis of quantum meruit for seryices rendered for a plaintiff which were not contemplated in the express contract between the parties. If a party declares only on express contract, it is true he could not then recover on quantum meruit which he had not pleaded.

2. We have not been cited to any authority which holds that the evidence of a party to a suit as to the value of the services which -he has performed at the request of the other party (and which lie outside of the scope of the express contract between the parties) is incompetent evidence to be considered, when not supported by other and additional evidence.

3. Where plaintiffs filed a suit to recover a balance of more than $400 due on a promissory note and to foreclose a mortgage on an automobile securing such note, and joined to that action a suit by one of the plaintiffs to recover an additional sum of $219 alleged to be due such plaintiff on such automobile but which additional sum was not covered by said note, and the court found that defendant had paid all his indebtedness to plaintiffs except $10.10, and further expressly found that said unpaid sum of $10.10 was due for certain items furnished defendant by such, plaintiff for his automobile, and the court *237then rendered judgment for such plaintiff (who had sued for the additional $219 aforesaid) for that sum, in the absence of any showing by plaintiffs that the court was not justified in applying the payments first to the satisfaction and extinguishment of the note, and in the absence of a showing by plaintiffs that the evidence did not warrant the court in finding that the remaining unpaid indebtedness (in the sum .of $10.10) had been incurred for items purchased by defendant, and was no part of the indebtedness evidenced by the note, we are unable to say that the court erred in ■denying foreclosure on such automobile.

Appellants alone have favored us with a brief in this case. For this reason we look forward to any 'aid which appellants may give us, in their motion for rehearing, showing why the above conclusions are not correct, and should not stand.

For the reasons above stated, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed; it is accordingly so ordered.

Affirmed.

PLEASANTS, C. J., absent
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Agenda

February 10, 2015

1:00 – 1:10 Welcome – Michael McRaith, Director of the Federal Insurance Office

1:10 – 1:15 New Business 

 Certification of November 6, 2014 Meeting Minutes

1:15 –1:30 Update from Subcommittees

 Affordability and Accessibility Subcommittee – Flood Insurance

1:30 – 3:30 Discussion of Retirement Security 

 Introduction by Bruce Saul (Federal Insurance Office)

 Presentation by Mark Iwry (U.S. Treasury) on MyRA.

 Presentation by Commissioner Ted Nickel (Wisconsin Office of the 

Commissioner of Insurance) on Retirement Security from a State Regulatory 

Perspective.

 Presentation by Professor Elizabeth Brown (Georgia State University) on the 

Annuity Puzzle.

 Presentation by Jim Szostek and Alane Dent (American Council of Life Insurers) 

on Retirement Security from an industry perspective. 

 Presentation by Professor Brenda Cude (University of Georgia) on Financial 

Literacy and its role in Retirement Security.

 Discussion

3:30 – 3:45 Break

3:45 – 4:00 Cyber Insurance – Sarah Bloom Raskin, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury

4:00 – 4:30 Discussion of the Evolving Issues Related to Ride-Sharing Companies 

 Presentation by Gus Fuldner (Uber) on driver education of insurance coverage. 

 Discussion

4:30 – 5:00 Discussion of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.

5:00 Adjourn
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0000943320
<NAME> TRUMP HOTELS & CASINO RESORTS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         150,167
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,215
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,344
<INVENTORY>                                     12,691
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               238,575
<PP&E>                                       2,296,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                 449,585
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,293,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          240,707
<BONDS>                                      1,762,186
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           242
<OTHER-SE>                                     133,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,293,499
<SALES>                                        316,490
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               351,907
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  202,453  <F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                87,702  <F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,435
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,473)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,473)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,473)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.84)
<FN>
<F1>Includes gaming,lodging,food & beverage and other
<F2>Includes general & administration, depreciation & amortization, and
    Trump World's Fair closing costs.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                   710,421  
<SECURITIES>                                                   0        
<RECEIVABLES>                                          2,552,486
<ALLOWANCES>                                             (60,726)
<INVENTORY>                                            3,729,846
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       7,034,529
<PP&E>                                                 2,544,879
<DEPRECIATION>                                         1,070,489 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        11,012,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 10,536,231
<BONDS>                                                5,705,315
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                              360,000
<COMMON>                                              51,674,618
<OTHER-SE>                                                     0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          11,012,217
<SALES>                                               18,991,587
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      18,991,587
<CGS>                                                 15,181,857
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         15,181,857
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      11,401,848
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         889,887
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       778,065
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (8,446,049)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (8,446,049)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (8,446,049)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               (.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               (.78)
        



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 5 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 5

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the 
limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2009

   Mr. Serrano introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the 
limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States is hereby repealed.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0327

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

THOMAS JAMES LUCERO,

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 January 12, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 22 2021

12/22/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0327
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 LeCroy
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 2, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas H. Reslewic, 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, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 11, 2010

/s/ Thomas H. ReslewicThomas H. ReslewicChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 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.
March 23, 2015

Harold C. Schuch, PE, CP, LSI

GeoCounsel, Inc.

31 Manzanita

Littleton, CO 80127

Dear Mr. Schuch:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. 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 January 27, 2015 exemption request on behalf of GeoCounsel, Inc. into the 

public docket (No. FAA-2015-0224), 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 granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires 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 additional time, you may call (202) 267-9521.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 95PA16

Filed 17 March 2017

CYNTHIA WALKER, D.D.S., 

 Petitioner

v.

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS,

 Respondent 

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision 

of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 782 S.E.2d 518 (2016), affirming an order 

entered on 23 October 2014 by Judge Elaine Bushfan in Superior Court, Wake

County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 13 February 2017.

Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, by Elizabeth Brooks Scherer and Ryan 

McKaig, for petitioner-appellant.

Ellis & Winters LLP, by Matthew W. Sawchak, Stephen D. Feldman, Troy D. 

Shelton, and Paul M. Cox; and Carolin Bakewell for respondent-appellee.

Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Clinton R. Pinyan, 

for North Carolina Board of Pharmacy, amicus curiae. 

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF
THE UNITED STATES CODE

I, Harvey Beker, the Co-Chief Executive Officer of Millburn Ridgefield
Corporation, the Managing Owner of The Millburn World Resource Trust (the
"Trust"), certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Trust on Form 10-Q for
the period ending June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.


/s/ Harvey Beker
----------------
Harvey Beker
Co-Chief Executive Officer
August 15, 2005
#### Edward J. Kuriansky, as Deputy Attorney-General for Medicaid Fraud Control, et al., Respondents, et al., Plaintiff, v Bed-Stuy Health Care Corporation et al., Defendants, and Fried, Spector, Scher & Feldman et al., Nonparty Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for medicaid fraud, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), entered August 21, 1989, which held the appellants in contempt of a prior order of the same court dated September 22, 1987.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants were properly found in contempt of the court’s prior order dated September 22, 1987. That order was clear and unequivocal, and, therefore, the appellants’ disobedience was properly punishable as contempt *(see, Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection v Department of Envtl. Conservation,*70 NY2d 233, 240; *Matter of McCormick v Axelrod,*59 NY2d 574, 583). Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
'^'^PARTMFN TO F SfcRVE D JUL Y18 , 201 1 'fiAA'SPORTATIOi M ''OCKBOPERATiON S U.S . DIIPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N 20! ' JU LI 8 P ?

• ^f l OmC B 01-HEARING S " ' ^ ^ WASHINGTON , D C I N TlI E MATTERO P M& RHELICOPTERS , LL C •A A DOCKE T NO . CRIOSOOO I (Civi l I'criiilt

y Action ) PDMSNO . FAA-20I0

- 121 1 ORDE RDENYIN G REQUES T FO RCREDENTIAL S AND LICENSIN G

INFORMATION " O FLAUR A PONT O Thi s matte r

i s before th e undersigne dan dwil l b e set

fo r hearing . Laur aPont o i s no t

apart y to thi s case , nor

i s any othe r

attorne y i

n th e emplo y o f th e Federa

l Aviatio n Administration . WHEREFORE , Respondent' s "Reques t ib r 'Credential s andLicensin g Information " o f

Laur aPonlo , o r

any othe r attorne y representin g th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , past , present and/o r future , b e andi s hereb y DENIED .

iw m U.S . Administrativ e La

w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFAA Docke t No . CPlOSOOOl 1 (Civi l Penalty Action ) REVISE D SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building-—Suit

e 2W1000 ' ON E COP Y MichaelB . Selig , MD,FACC , Respondent' s RepresenUidv e 28l 6 0reriel dRoad Allentown , P

A 18104 TEL : 610-360-395 3 FAX : Charle s Raley , Comp/ainan t \ s Counse l Attorney , Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 TEL : 202-267-335 7 FAX : 202-267-510 6 The Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Lm

v Judg e U.S . Department

o f Transponatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 . 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL ; Attorney-Adviso r

202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Serv'ic e wa s b y U.S . Mai! . Fo

r serx'ic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e (h e followin g address " Federa

l Aviatio n Administration . 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue. S.W. . Wilbu

r Wngh l Building—Suit

e 2WI00 O Wasliinmo

n D C 20591 : Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk . AGC-430 '

- 9 -
#### Norstar Bank, National Association, Appellant, v Eastwood Associates and Professional Enterprises, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motions against defendants James J. Michalek, Leo M. Michalek, Jr., and Daniel Tenerowicz granted. Memorandum: In these separate actions to foreclose mortgages on two properties and to collect deficiency judgments against the corporate borrower and three individual guarantors, plaintiff bank appeals from those portions of the orders that denied its motions for summary judgment against the guarantors. The court erred in denying the bank’s motions for summary judgment against all guarantors. The guarantors’ defenses and contentions in opposition to the bank’s motions are legally insufficient to defeat them. Those contentions, most of which are mere conclusory allegations lacking in evidentiary support, contravene the unequivocal and unconditional language of the guarantees. In particular, the documents expressly guarantee "payment”, not merely "collection”; state that they are "collateral [to] independent of and in addition to any other security, collateral, endorsement or guarantee held by the Bank”; provide that the guarantors’ liability thereunder is "direct, immediate”, "absolute”, and unconditional; stipulate that the liability of the guarantors "shall not be impaired, altered or otherwise affected” by any act or omission on the bank’s part "whatsoever”; and, finally, provide that the bank’s right to enforce the guarantees shall not be "modified, limited or waived by * * * any course of conduct”. Because the guarantors’ contentions are lacking both in legal merit and in factual support, there is no basis for denying summary judgment to the bank.

In light of our disposition, it is unnecessary to address the bank’s contention that the court abused its discretion in severing the claims. (Appeal from order of Erie County Court, Drury, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00112-Z-BR

§

TRINTON JACOB COLLINS-GONZALES (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

TRINTON JACOB COLLINS-GONZALES (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 

261 (5th Cir. 1997), has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 of 

the Indictment. After cautioning and examining TRINTON JACOB COLLINS-GONZALES (1) under oath concerning 

each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the 

offense charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I 

therefore recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted, and that TRINTON JACOB COLLINS-GONZALES (1) be 

adjudged guilty of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871 - POSSESSION OF AN UNREGISTERED FIREARM and have sentence 

imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: February 22, 2023

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00112-Z-BR Document 34 Filed 02/22/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 71