alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gipp, Appellant, vs. Gipp, Respondent.

*December 5,1950*—

January *9, 1951.*

*222For the appellant there was a brief by *Winter & Koehler*of Shawano, and oral argument by *Herman E. Winter.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Eberlein & Eber-lein*of Shawano, and oral argument by *M. G. Eberlein, Jr.*

Hughes, J.

It appears from the record that the likelihood of the farm paying out all that the judgment contemplates is extremely doubtful. The judgment puts all of the obligations, including the payments to be made to the husband, ahead of the rights of the wife. Although the wife asked for and was anxious to have the farm, we are of the opinion that the judgment harshly places upon her all of the risk of loss.

It may be open to serious question whether a farm which, with the personal efforts of the occupant, will produce only $1,500 per year, has a true value of $16,000. Moreover, it appears that the property accumulated by these parties was acquired through the efforts of both wife and husband, as well as by the original investment of the wife’s money.

Ordinarily the division of estate in a divorce action will be left to the discretion of the trial court. Because of the apparent inequitable result here obtained, however, and the possibility that the wife may ultimately lose her share if the judgment were permitted to stand, we conclude that the payments provided for the husband must be reduced to $3,500, the plaintiff to pay her own attorney’s fees.

*By the Court.*— The judgment is modified by reducing the share of the defendant from $5,500 to $3,500, payable by the plaintiff at the rate of $700 per year, the unpaid balance to draw interest at three per cent per annum; plaintiff to pay her own attorney’s fees. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 380

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 380 ES

1 SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL AWARD ACT AMENDMENTS

2 OF 1999.

3 (a) CHANGE OF ANNUAL REPORTING DATE.—Sec4 tion 3(e) of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C.

5 802(e)) is amended in the first sentence by striking ‘‘April

6 1’’ and inserting ‘‘June 1’’.

7 (b) MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS.—Section 4(a)(1)

8 of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 803(a)(1)) is

9 amended—

10 (1) in subparagraphs (A) and (D), by striking

11 ‘‘member of the Congressional Award Association’’

12 and inserting ‘‘recipient of the Congressional

13 Award’’ ; and

14 (2) in subparagraphs (B) and (C), by striking

15 ‘‘representative of a local Congressional Award

16 Council’’ and inserting ‘‘a local Congressional Award

17 program volunteer’’.

18 (c) EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENTS REGARDING FI19 NANCIAL OPERATIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL AWARD PRO20 GRAM; NONCOMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS.—Section

21 5(c)(2)(A) of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C.

22 804(c)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘and 1998’’ and in23 serting ‘‘1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004’’.
3

S 380 ES

1 (d) TERMINATION.—Section 9 of the Congressional

2 Award Act (2 U.S.C. 808) is amended by striking ‘‘Octo3 ber 1, 1999’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2004’’.

Passed the Senate April 13, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 380

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.
#### Mazanec and others, Appellants, vs. Crabb and another, Respondents.

For the appellants *-.-Nash & Nash*of Manitowoc.

For the respondents: *Hougen, Brady & Murphy*of Manitowoc.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2:

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hudson Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James R. Buscemi, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchanges Act of 1934; and                              
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                     
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|/s/ James R. Buscemi   
|-----------------------
|James R. Buscemi       
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|November 5, 2004
#### Felts v. F. L. Butcher, Appellant.

land Sale Commission. Where a decree of specific performance ought to be denied' because a buyer of land, who orally accepted an offer to sell, made through an agent, did not perform the terms of the offer before the agent’s authority was revoked, the agent is not entitled to commission for selling the land. See *Naylor v. Butcher,*93 Iowa, 340.

*Appeal from Calhoun District Court.*— How. Charles D. Goldsmith, Judge.

Wednesday, January 23, 1895.

Action at law to recover the sum of one hundred and twenty dollars1, which the plaintiff alleges is due Mm from the defendant ais a real estate agent’s com-misgion for selling two hundred and forty acres of land. The defendant, by his answer1, denied that the plaintiff made a sale of said land', and' denied that he was indebted to plaintiff in any amount. At the close of the introduction of the evidence the court directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff. From a judgment on the verdict the defendant appeals.—

*Reversed.*

*M. W. Frich*and *Botsford, Healy*& *Healy*for appellant.

*Stevenson*& *Lavender*for appellee.

Bothrock, J.

The case involves the same transaction as the case of *Naylor v. Butcher,*93 Iowa, 340, 61 N. W. Rep. 989. In the case at bar the plaintiff claims to recover a commission for the *415sale of defendant’s- land, and in the cited case the plaintiffs demanded a specific performance by a conveyance of the same land upon the alleged contract declared on in this action. The defendant, Butcher, is a resident of the state of Missouri, and the negotiations between the parties were carried on by written correspondence, and the evidence is substantially the same in both cases, We held in the other case' that the alleged contract of sale was not completed, and that there was, therefore, no right to a decree for specific performance. In the case at bar the District Court, by the directed verdict, held as a matter of law that a contract of sale was made. We think this was error. The defendant made a motion that the court direct a verdict in his favor. We think it should have been sustained. It is unnecessary to make a .statement of facts in this opinion. Such a statement would be a mere repetition of the discussion in the other case. It is proper to say in conclusion that the compensation of the plaintiff herein depended upon a consummated sale, and not upon mere negotiations for a sale; and the claim made in the petition is for a sale of the land. We do not hold that the plaintiff could not recover his commission if he made a sale within the prescribed terms which the defendant wrongfully refused to execute by making a conveyance. In such case the agent is entitled to his commission. *Burns v. Oliphant,*78 Iowa, 456, 43 N. W. Rep. 289. But the facts do not show that he made any contract which either the purchaser or seller could enforce. The jud’gmentf‘di;:d:he District Court'is *reversed.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 24, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 11, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 389 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-75, K2025-73.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-24611 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 28.1

                                  [LETTERHEAD]
                                     NuVell
                             Financial Services Corp.



March 30, 1999



Dave Plante
Advanta Auto Finance Corporation
800 Ridgeview Drive
Horsham, PA  19044

RE:     Sale and Servicing Agreement dated June 1, 1998, between Advanta
        Automobile Receivables Trust 1998-1 ("Issuer"), and other parties.

Dear Mr. Plante,

A review of the activities of Nuvell Financial Services Corp. (the
"Sub-Servicer") during the preceding calendar year and of its performance under
this Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision and pursuant to
Section 4.10(a) of the Agreement. To the best of my knowledge, based on such
review, the Sub-Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under this
Agreement during the preceding calendar year.

We understand that Advanta may provide a copy of this letter to the Trustee,
the Owner Trustee, the Trust Collateral Agent and the Insurer pursuant to
Section 4.10(a) of the Agreement.


Sincerly,



J. Robert Hardesty
Executive Vice President


cc: General Counsel





                                



  17500 Chenal Parkway-Arksys Plaza-Suite-200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223-9131


                                       13
EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION  I,  Chong Kim as Secretary and Treasurer (CFO),  certify  that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Marvins Place, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by       others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control financial reporting;  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: January 8, 2008 By:/s/ Chong Kim Chong Kim, Secretary and Treasurer (CFO)
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  EXHIBIT (23)-3



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-72747) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1998 Stock
Incentive Plan of The Banc Corporation and Commerce Bank of Alabama Incentive
Stock Compensation Plan and (Form S-8 No. 333-70953) pertaining to The Banc
Corporation 401(k) Plan of our report dated March 3, 1999, with respect to the
financial statements of C&L Bank of Bristol (not presented separately in the
1999 Annual Report on Form 10-K) included in the Annual Report of The Banc
Corporation (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.



Williams, Cox, Weidner & Cox


Marianna, Florida
March 21, 2000
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 380

To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 4, 1999

Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. FRIST, Mr. ASHCROFT,

Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. BURNS, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. INHOFE, Mr.

HELMS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. LOTT, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. GREGG,

Mr. SESSIONS, and Mr. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL AWARD ACT AMENDMENTS

4 OF 1999.

5 (a) CHANGE OF ANNUAL REPORTING DATE.—Sec6 tion 3(e) of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C.

7 802(e)) is amended in the first sentence by striking ‘‘April

8 1’’ and inserting ‘‘June 1’’.
2

•S 380 IS

1 (b) MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS.—Section 4(a)(1)

2 of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 803(a)(1)) is

3 amended—

4 (1) in subparagraphs (A) and (D), by striking

5 ‘‘member of the Congressional Award Association’’

6 and inserting ‘‘recipient of the Congressional

7 Award’’ ; and

8 (2) in subparagraphs (B) and (C), by striking

9 ‘‘representative of a local Congressional Award

10 Council’’ and inserting ‘‘a local Congressional Award

11 program volunteer’’.

12 (c) EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENTS REGARDING FI13 NANCIAL OPERATIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL AWARD PRO14 GRAM; NONCOMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS.—Section

15 5(c)(2)(A) of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C.

16 804(c)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘and 1998’’ and in17 serting ‘‘1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004’’.

18 (d) TERMINATION.—Section 9 of the Congressional

19 Award Act (2 U.S.C. 808) is amended by striking ‘‘Octo20 ber 1, 1999’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2004’’.

Æ
#### Samuel F. Gray, sheriff, plaintiff in error, *vs.*James *K. Maxwell,*trustee, defendant in error.

1. A sheriff having collected money for a plaintiff in execution is subject to process of garnishment at the instance of a creditor of said plaintiff.

2. Where a balance of money collected on an execution remained in the sheriff’s hands, which he was notified was claimed by the attorney for the plaintiff in *fi. fa.*as his fee, and after such notice judgment was rendered against Mm on a process of garnishment sued out at the instance of a creditor of said plaintiff, he making no defense, which judgment he satisfied, it was not error in the Court, on the hearing of a rule *nisi*requiring him to show cause why he should not pay over such balance to the plaintiff’s attorney, to make the rule absolute.

Garnishment. Sheriff. Rule against officer. Execution. Before Judge Greene. Spalding Superior Court. August Adjourned Term, 1872.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

John D. Stewart; Boynton & Dismuke, for plaintiff in error.

A. M. Speer ; D. J. Bailey, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was a rule against the sheriff to show cause why he should not pay over to the plaintiff's attorney the money in his hands, collected on a *ji. fa.*in favor of the plaintiff. The Court made the rule absolute against the sheriff for the payment of $100 00, whereupon the sheriff excepted. It ap*109pears from the record that the sheriff had collected, on an execution placed in his hands, issued from the Superior Court of Spalding county, in favor of the plaintiff, against the defendant therein, the sum of $250 00; that he paid to the plaintiff) by direction of plaintiff’s attorney, $150 00, but was notified by him, in writing, that he demanded the balance should be paid to him, the attorney, he claiming the right to control the same. The sheriff had been served with a summons of garnishment from a Justices’ Court, at the instance of a creditor of the plaintiff in execution. The sheriff answered that he had the money in his hands, but made no objection to the judgment being rendered against him in the Justices’ Court for the money collected as sheriff as aforesaid, and paid the same in satisfaction of the Justices’ Court judgment, after notice by the plaintiff’s attorney, as before stated, which notice was given to the sheriff before the judgment was rendered against him, as garnishee, in the Justices’ Court. If the rule was made absolute against the sheriff for the purpose of paying the $100 00 in his hands to the plaintiff, when he had already appropriated it to the payment of the plaintiff’s debt, we should hold it was error, but if it was to be paid to the plaintiff’s attorney for his fee in the case, as we infer from the notice given to the sheriff, (though the notice is not very distinct on that point) then the ruling of the Court was right, and, taking that view of it, we affirm the judgment of the Court below.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 14

                                 CODE OF ETHICS

<PAGE>

                                 Code of Ethics
             For Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                         of Sound Federal Bancorp, Inc.

      It is the policy of Sound Federal  Bancorp,  Inc. that the Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO"),  and Chief Financial  Officer ("CFO") of Sound Federal Bancorp,
Inc.  (hereinafter  referred to as the  "Company")  adhere to and  advocate  the
following  principles  governing their  professional  and ethical conduct in the
fulfillment of their responsibilities:

      1. Act with  honesty and  integrity,  avoid  actual or apparent  conflicts
between his or her personal, private interests and the interests of the Company,
including  receiving  improper  personal  benefits  as a  result  of  his or her
position.

      2. Perform  responsibilities  with a view to causing  periodic reports and
other  documents  filed with the SEC to contain  information  which is accurate,
complete, fair and understandable.

      3. Comply with laws of federal, state, and local governments applicable to
the  Company,  and the rules and  regulations  of private and public  regulatory
agencies having jurisdiction over the Company.

      4. Act in good faith, responsibly,  with due care, and diligence,  without
misrepresenting or omitting material facts or allowing  independent  judgment to
be compromised.

      5. Respect the  confidentiality  of information  acquired in the course of
the  performance  of his or  her  responsibilities  except  when  authorized  or
otherwise  legally  obligated  to  disclose.  Not use  confidential  information
acquired in the course of the  performance  of his or her  responsibilities  for
personal advantage.

      6. Proactively promote ethical behavior among subordinates and peers.

      7.  Use  corporate  assets  and  resources  employed  or  entrusted  in  a
responsible manner.

      8.   Not  use   corporate   information,   corporate   assets,   corporate
opportunities  or one's position with the Company for personal gain. Not compete
directly or indirectly with the Company.

      9. Comply in all respects with the Company's Code of Business  Conduct and
Ethics and the Company's Policy on Insider Trading.

      10.  Advance  the  Company's  legitimate  interests  when the  opportunity
arises.

      It is also  the  Company's  Policy  that  the  CEO and CFO of the  Company
acknowledge  and  certify  to the  foregoing  annually  and  file a copy of such
certification  with each of the Audit  Committee  and the  Corporate  Governance
Committee of the Board.

                                       1
<PAGE>

         The  Corporate  Governance  Committee  shall have the power to monitor,
make  determinations,  and  recommend  action  to  the  Board  with  respect  to
violations  of this  Policy,  except for  paragraphs  2, 3 and 4 with respect to
which the Audit Committee shall have such power.


                                       2
Exhibit 32





Section 1350 Certifications




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Shearson American REIT, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), hereby certify that:




To my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K (Amendment No. 3) of the Company for  the period ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:  August 11, 2011




/s/ John Williams


John Williams


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)





Dated:  August 11, 2011





/s/ Aaron J. Phipps


Aaron J. Phipps


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)