alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### O. J. Pearson, *et al.,*Appellants, v. L. B. Christmas, Administrator, Etc.

Estates of Decedents: claims. A claim was filed in due time and about six months to spare. It is claimed to have been lost in the clerk’s office. It was known that it was disputed. *Held,*a second claim filed a year later should not be allowed.

*Appeal from Linn District Court.*— Hon. J. H. Preston, Judge.

Monday, February 4, 1895.

This is a proceeding to establish a claim against the estate of John Christman, deceased. There was a full hearing on the evidence, and the claim was not allowed. Plaintiffs *appeal.*

Affirmed.

*Thompson & Stuart*for appellants.

*Davis*& *Voris*for appellee.

Pothroch, J.

The plaintiffs are officers of Spring-ville Lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows. John Christman was a resident of Springville, at which place he died, in the year 1889. The defendant was appointed one of the administrators of the estate of deceased, and notice of administration was given in the month of December, 1889. The present claim was filed in the court below on the fourteenth day of August, *7041891. The trial by which it was sought to prove the claim was held in the District Court in May, 1893'. The claim is one which our statute designates as of the fourth class. Section 2421 of the Code is as follows: “All claims of the fourth of the above classes not filed and proved within twelve months of the giving of the notice aforesaid are forever barred unless the claim is pending in the District or Supreme Court, or unless peculiar circumstances entitle the claimant to equitable relief.” The claim was filed more than one year after notice of administration was completed, and the bar of the statute attached, unless it appears from the evidence that there were peculiar circumstances which entitle the claimant to equitable relief, it is urged that the claim was actually filed within one year, but that it was lost from the office of the clerk of the District Court. The defendant disputes the fact that any such claim was filed. However that may be, we can discover no reason why the filing of the claim upon which the trial was had was delayed until August, 1891. A number of terms of the District Court intervened between the alleged first filing and the filing upon which the trial was had. All of the parties interested reside in or near Springville, in Linn county; and the claimants knew that the claim was disputed, and would not be allowed and paid without being established as a valid claim, by an order of court. We do not think that there was any error in disallowing the claim. This disposition of the case renders it unnecessary to dispose of other questions discussed by counsel. The judgment of the District Court is *affirmed.*
#### State of Iowa v. John W. Dunn, Appellant.

Evidence : *Hearsay.*To admit a conversation between a witness and another, so that the witness may fix a date with reference to such conversation, does not constitute the taking of hearsay and is proper.

*751Review o-e -conbeict in evidence. Evidence that property was stolen was undisputed, and there was also evidence that defendant had realized a part of the profits from a sale of the property, and that he had confessed. Meld, sufficient to sustain a conviction, notwithstanding evidence tending to show an alibi.

*Appeal from Page District Court.*— Hon. W. R. Green, Judge.

Wednesday, December 13, 1899.

Indictment for Darceny. From a verdict and judgment of guilty, defendant *appeals.*

Affirmed.

*C. W. Stuart*and *D. M. Chiles*for appellant.

*Milton Remley,*Attorney General and *Chas. A. Van Vleck,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Deemer, J.

I. Defendant is accused of having stolen three hogs, the property of one Cass Bean. But two complaints are made of the proceedings in the trial court: *First,*it is insisted that the court was in error in allowing in evidence the testimony of witnesses Ruechel and Duncan; and, *second,*that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary thereto. Witness Ruechel testified that he met three men, including the defendant, in a wagon, not far from the scene of the larceny, about 9 or 10 o’clock in the evening. He was not able to fix the date, except by reference to a conversation he had with Duncan three or four days after he saw the men. Duncan was permitted to testify, over defendant’s objections, as to the conversation he had with Ruechel, for the purpose of fixing the date when he (Ruechel) saw these men. He also testified that at the time he had the conversation he fixed the date of the alleged larceny, and made inquiry of Ruechel about seeing some men on that night. Ruechel further testified that when Duncan made inquiry of him, and fixed the time, he then remembered that he saw the men on that particular occasion. Surely this evidence was properly admitted for the purpose of fixing the time when Ruechel saw the de fendant in the neighborhood of the scene of the larceny. It was not hearsay, but direct evidence tending to fix a date, and was clearly admissible for that purpose.

II It is shown without dispute that the hogs in question were stolen by some one, and the only real issue was the defendants connection with the theft. The evidence shows that defendant realized a part of the profits from the sale of the hogs, and there was also evidence of a confession made by him to one Pierce. If credited by the jury, this was sufficient to sustain the verdict, notwithstanding the evidence adduced tending to show an alibi. We have examined the record with care, and find no error. — Arrirmed.

Granger, J., not sitting.
<PAGE>


                                 EXHIBIT (23)-1

                         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 15, 2004, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of The Banc Corporation and
Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2003.


                                        Ernst & Young LLP


Birmingham, Alabama
March 15, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24649]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3615-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]


Florida; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of Florida (FEMA-3615-EM), dated September 24, 2024, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 25, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of 
September 24, 2024.

    Alachua, Columbia, Hamilton, Holmes, Walton, and Washington 
Counties for emergency protective measures [Category B], including 
direct federal assistance (already designated for emergency 
protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal 
assistance under the Public Assistance program).
    Bay, Calhoun, Citrus, Dixie, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Gulf, 
Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, 
Suwannee, Taylor, and Wakulla Counties for emergency protective 
measures [Category B], including direct federal assistance (already 
designated for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited 
to direct federal assistance and reimbursement for mass care 
including evacuation and shelter support).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-24649 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.1

                                   AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                  STOCK EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION TRUST AGREEMENT



     WHEREAS, under Section 6.2 of the Amended and Restated Stock Employee
Compensation Trust Agreement (the "Trust Agreement"), dated as of August 1,
2000, by and between Newport News Shipbuilding Inc. (the "Company") and Wachovia
Bank, N.A., as trustee of the Trust created thereby, the Trust Agreement may be
amended subject to certain exceptions not relevant hereto.

     The parties do hereby amend the Trust Agreement, effective upon the
Consummation of the Offer (as defined in the Agreement and Plan of Merger among
General Dynamics Corporation, Grail Acquisition Corporation and the Company,
dated as of April 24, 2001), as follows:


     FIRST:  The second sentence of Section 3.2 of the Trust Agreement is
     amended in its entirety to read as follows:

     "The Trustee shall apply all dividends and earnings paid (including any
     gains from sales or exchanges) in respect of Acquired Shares or other NNS
     Securities (other than Extraordinary Dividends) to the payment of principal
     and interest under a note or such other indebtedness of the Trust relating
     to the acquisition of Acquired Shares, notwithstanding any provision of
     this Trust Agreement to the contrary."

     SECOND:  A new Section 6.4 of the Trust Agreement is added to read as
     follows:

     "6.4  Winding Up.  For the avoidance of doubt, the Trust and the Trust
     Agreement shall remain in effect following the Termination Date for such
     period as is necessary for the Trustee to comply with the obligations of
     Section 6.1 hereof."


     Full Force and Effect.  Except as expressly amended hereby, the Trust
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with the terms
thereof on the date hereof.
<PAGE>

     Governing Law.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the law of the State of Delaware applicable to contracts to be
made and performed entirely within such State.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this Amendment as of
the dates indicated below.


     NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING INC.



Date:____________      By:_______________________
                                Treasurer


ATTEST:


By:________________________
Title:

                         WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., solely in its capacity as Trustee
                         under the Trust Agreement referenced herein



Date:____________      By:_______________________
                       Title:


ATTEST:


By:________________________
Title:
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 20216 Summary Calendar

Marilyn J. Taylor Walker,

Plaintiff

— Appellant ,

versus

Ben Skalka, Fraud Investigator ; Carla Venzor, Hearing Officer ; The Houston Housing Authority,

Defendants

— Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CV

- 2736

Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *
Marilyn J. Taylor Walker, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of her motions for default judgment and its dismissal of her civil rights complaint

. With the benefit of liberal construction, she argues

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 11, 2021
Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 20-20216 Document: 00515858080 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2021No. 20

- 20216

2 that she was entitled to default judgment because she was not properly served
with the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of T he Houston Housing Authorit y and its employees Ben Skalka and Carla Venzor (collectively, the defendants)

.
We review the district court’s denial of a motion for default judgment
for abuse of discretion. Lewis v. Lynn , 236 F.3d 766, 767 (5th Cir. 2001). Generally, a plaintiff may s eek default judgment when a defendant fails to defend against a complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. The defendants in this case timely filed and served their motion to dismiss on Taylor Walker via
certified mail to her last known address. See Fed. R. Civ . P. 5(a)(1)(D) ; Fed. R. Civ. P . 5 (b)(2)(C). Although Taylor Walker contends she did not ultimately receive the mailing, service was complete as of the mailing date.

See Fed. R Civ. P. 5(b)(2)( C )

. In arguing that she was not properly served, Taylor Walker relies entirely on Texas state rules and state case law, which are inapposite. Because the defendants did not default , the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Taylor Walker’s motions for default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55.
Taylor Walker has abandoned, by failing to brief, any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of her complaint for failure to state a claim and to
its award of costs to the defendants. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993 )

. To the extent that she seeks to raise any new claims for the first time on appeal, we decline to consider them. See id . at 225.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

. Case: 20-20216 Document: 00515858080 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND AS
OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000925661
<NAME> PLASMATRONIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,428)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32   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 on Form 10-Q of Flexpoint Sensor Systems, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Clark M. Mower, Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas N. Strong, Chief Financial Officer of our 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 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.    Dated: November 18, 2009 /s/Clark M. Mower Clark M. Mower Chief Executive Officer   Dated: November 18, 2009 /s/Thomas N. Strong Thomas N. Strong Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERINST INSURANCE GROUP, LTD.



|                                        |  |                             |  |                     |     
|--------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------- |  | ------------------- | ----
|Name                                    |  | Jurisdictionof Organization |  | PercentageOwnership |     
|AmerInst Mezco, Ltd.                    |  | Bermuda                     |  | 100                 | %(1)
|AmerInst Insurance Company, Ltd.        |  | Bermuda                     |  | 100                 | %(1)
|AmerInst Investment Company, Ltd.       |  | Bermuda                     |  | 100                 | %(1)
|AmerInst Underwriters, Inc.             |  | Delaware                    |  | 100                 | %(1)
|AmerInst Holdings, Ltd.                 |  | Bermuda                     |  | 100                 | %(1)
|AmerInst Professional Services, Limited |  | Delaware                    |  | 100                 | %(1)



|(1) | AmerInst Mezco, Ltd., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd., owns 100% of the shares of AmerInst Professional Services, Limited, and 100%
of the shares of AmerInst Insurance Company, Ltd., which in turn owns 100% of the shares of each of AmerInst Investment Company, Ltd., AmerInst Underwriters, Inc., and AmerInst Holdings, Ltd.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24069]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

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 18, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 462 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-65, K2025-63.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-24069 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Annual Report of Panamersa Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James E. Finegan, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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




/s/ James FineganJames E. Finegan, Treasurer




Dated:
June 22, 2011
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 Hudson Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin J. Zugibe, as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board 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 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.





|/s/ Kevin J. Zugibe        
|---------------------------
|Kevin J. Zugibe            
|Chief Executive Officer and
|Chairman of the Board      
|                           
|August 3, 2005