alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. B. PERRY v. DUNCAN BRAGG.

*Agricultural Lien*— Description.

A description in an agricultural lien of the land upon which the crops were to be grown as “ a tract of land in Granville County, known as the C. H. Dement, deceased, or any other lands he (defendant) may cultivate during the year 1889,” is not void for uncertainty as to the “ Dement ” tract (which may be aided by parol proof), but is void in respect to the other lands mentioned.

Civil actioN, tried at January Term, 1891, of GraNVille Superior Court, *Boykin, J.,*presiding.

Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appealed.

*304
      *Mr. N. Y Gulley*(by brief), for plaintiff.

*Mr. J. W. Hays*(by brief), for defendant.

Clark, J.:

This action is to recover certain crops by virtue of an agricultural lien thereon given by the defendant to the plaintiff. The said lien describes the lands on which such crops are to be raised, as follows: “Upon a tract of land in Granville County, known as the C. H. Dement, deceased, or any other lands he (the defendant) may cultivate during the year 1888.” The Court ruled that the description of the land on which the crops were raised was too vague and uncertain to pass title to said crops, and rendered judgment on that ground against the plaintiff, to which he excepted. The record discloses no other ruling of the Judge, nor any other exception by appellant.

It has been held in *Weil*v. *Flowers, ante,*212, that a description, similar to that above recited, was valid and sufficient as to crops raised by the defendant during the year on the land in the county named “known as C. H. Dement, deceased,” and that such description is not rendered invalid and insufficient by the superadded words, “ or any other lands he may cultivate.” The latter words are mere sur-plusage, not vitiating the definite words preceding them, “the land in Granvillé County known as C. H. Dement, deceased,” which admit of parol proof to identify it.

There is no suggestion by exception, nor in the printed briefs filed by counsel, that the land of “ C. H. Dement, deceased,” was not sufficiently identified by proof, but if there is any doubt on that point, the facts will be developed in a new trial.

Error.
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 Service TM.                    

# 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 31, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. 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 22, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 509 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-126, K2025-124.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-25262 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7274

BERNARD MCFADDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and KIMBLE CAMPBELL; MICHAEL JEROME PARKER; JOSEPH SYLVESTER; ARNOLD SINGLETON; RONEY HAMMION, Plaintiffs, versus BENJAMIN MONTGOMERY, Deputy Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; DOUG CATOE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; ROBERT PLEMONS, Dairy Program Assistant; JOHN H. CARMICHAEL, Warden; ANTHONY J. PADULA, Warden; MARK A. LAWHORN, Captain;RANDOLPH DUBOXE, Institutional Grievance Coordinator; MARY LOWDER, Counsel Substitute, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-00-201-3-24BC) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.2 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Bernard McFadden appeals the district court’s order dismissing in part his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3203

To make certain corrections in copyright law.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 12 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. HATCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To make certain corrections in copyright law.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Work Made For Hire

5 and Copyright Corrections Act of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. WORK MADE FOR HIRE.

7 (a) DEFINITION.—The definition of ‘‘work made for

8 hire’’ contained in section 101 of title 17, United States

9 Code, is amended—

10 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘as a sound

11 recording,’’; and
2

•S 3203 IS

1 (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol2 lowing:

3 ‘‘In determining whether any work is eligible to be

4 considered a work made for hire under paragraph

5 (2), neither the amendment contained in section

6 1011(d) of the Intellectual Property and Commu7 nications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, as enacted

8 by section 1000(a)(9) of Public Law 106–113, nor

9 the deletion of the words added by that

10 amendment—

11 ‘‘(A) shall be considered or otherwise given

12 any legal significance, or

13 ‘‘(B) shall be interpreted to indicate con14 gressional approval or disapproval of, or acqui15 escence in, any judicial determination,

16 by the courts or the Copyright Office. Paragraph (2)

17 shall be interpreted as if both section 2(a)(1) of the

18 Work Made For Hire and Copyright Corrections Act

19 of 2000 and section 1011(d) of the Intellectual

20 Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act

21 of 1999, as enacted by section 1000(a)(9) of Public

22 Law 106–113, were never enacted, and without re23 gard to any inaction or awareness by the Congress

24 at any time of any judicial determinations.’’.

25 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—
3

•S 3203 IS

1 (1) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made

2 by this section shall be effective as of November 29,

3 1999.

4 (2) SEVERABILITY.—If the provisions of para5 graph (1), or any application of such provisions to

6 any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the

7 remainder of this section, the amendments made by

8 this section, and the application of this section to

9 any other person or circumstance shall not be af10 fected by such invalidation.

Æ
#### A. J. Mandel, Appellant, v. H. Friedman, Appellee.

.Appeal: notice: record.

*Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court.*— Hon. N. W. Macy, Judge.

Friday, May 20, 1892.

The plaintiff filed his motion for an order requiring George F. Wright, John N. Baldwin and 0. Haldane, composing the firm of Wright, Baldwin ■& Haldane, to pay over money alleged to have been collected by them from the defendant for the plaintiff, as his attorneys in the above entitled cause. The motion was submitted upon affidavits, ahd overruled. The plaintiff *appeals.*

Dismissed.

*735
      *Blum $• Blum,*for appellant.

*Wright Baldwin,*for appellee.

Given, J.

There is nothing in the record before us to show that an ¡appeal has been taken .in this case. We. have repeatedly held that it must appear that an appeal has been taken, and, in the absence of such showing, the case will be dimissed. *Plummer v. Peoples Nat. Bank,*73 Iowa, 752; *First Nat. Bank v. City Council of Albia, post,*page 730; *Farrell v. City of Muscatine, post,*page 747. Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Janice R. Browning, Controller (principal financial officer) of the registrant, certifythat:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SouthFirst Bancshares, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained inSEC Release 34-47986]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        February 14, 2006 /s/ Janice R. Browning   Janice R. Browning   Controller and Treasurer
#### JESSE SUMNER v. THOMAS J. CANDLER.

Either a Clerk or Judge of the Superior Court may, in proper cases, within tiie jurisdiction of said court, authorize a person to sue *in forma pauperis.*

A party to an action or special proceeding in any and ail courts, and before any and all persons acting judicially may be examined as a witness on Ills own behalf, or in behalf of any other party thereto:

Therefore, where a party is authorized by a competent tribunal, to sue *informa pauperis : it is error,*to dismiss the action upon the ground that the application so to sue is based upon the evidence of the plaintiff himself.

*1Bowark*v. *Gaston,*67 N. C. Rep. 291, cited and approved.)

This was a motioN in the cause, heard before his Honor Judge *II' in/,*at Fall Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of BuNcombe county.

The plaintiff, upon petition, Was allowed by the Clerk of the Superior Court to sue *in forma pauperis.*The petition was verified by the plaintiff.

The defendant moved the court to dismiss the action, upon the ground that the plaintiff had not complied with the requirements of the statute in his petition for leave to sue *in forma pauperis,*but the record does not show in what particular. ""

The motion was allowed by the court, and thereupon the plaintiff appealed.

*J. II. M-rrimon.*for the appellant.

No counsel *contra,*in this court.

Settle, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court, dismissing the action for the reason that the plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of the law, regulating suits *in forma pauperis.*

*266As the defendant was not represented by counsel in this court, no particulars were specified in which the plaintiff had failed to comply with the law.

If the objection be that the Clerk could not authorize the plaintiff to sue, as a pauper, in the Superior Court, it is answered by the decision of this court in *Rowark*v. *Gaston,*67 N. C. Rep., 291, where it is held that either a Judge or *Clerk*of the Superior Court may, in proper cases, within the jurisdiction of said court, authorize a person to sue *in forma pau-peris.*But if the objection be that the plaintiff cannot, by his own oath, prove that he has a good cause of action; the reply is, since “ a party to an action or special proceeding in any and all courts and before any and all officers and persons acting judicially, may be examined as a witness on his own behalf, or in behalf of any other party,” <fcc., no reason is perceived why he may not prove, by his own oath, a fact, in order to get into court, which, it is admitted, he may prove when once there ; or, in other words, why he may not prove that he has a good cause of action at different stages of the proceeding.

The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed.

Let this be certified, &c.

Pee Cueiam. Judgment reversed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

128 

CAF 11-00271 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF CLAUDINA E.P. 

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

ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STEPHANIE M., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, 

AND JOHNNY N., RESPONDENT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

ALAN BIRNHOLZ, EAST AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF

BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR CLAUDINA

E.P. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret

O. Szczur, J.), entered January 26, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other things, placed

respondent Stephanie M. under the supervision of petitioner. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from three orders, each of

which adjudicated one of her three children to be neglected and placed

the mother under the supervision of petitioner. The findings of

neglect were based on, inter alia, the mother’s violation of an order

of protection requiring respondent father to stay away from the mother

and her home and prohibiting him from visiting the children unless a

court order was entered authorizing such visitation. We reject the

contention of the mother in each appeal that the evidence at the factfinding hearing was insufficient to support the adjudications of

neglect (see generally Family Ct Act § 1051 [a]). The record

establishes that the mother left at least one of the subject children

at her home in the care of the father, despite her awareness of his

violent tendencies and in knowing violation of the order of

protection. We therefore conclude “that there is a sound and

substantial basis to support Family Court’s finding that the child[ren

were] in imminent danger of impairment as a result of [the mother’s]

failure to exercise a minimum degree of care” (Matter of Paul U., 12

AD3d 969, 971; see § 1012 [f] [i]; Matter of Angelina W., 43 AD3d 
-2- 128 

CAF 11-00271 

1370).

Entered: January 31, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 99.15

CONSENT OF ENGINEER

Ladies and
Gentlemen:

The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the undersigneds name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report entitled Mineral Resource Estimate On The J Zone Uranium Deposit, Waterbury Lake Property dated September 6, 2013 and (2) all other references to the
undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the registration statement in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp.

Dated:
March 30, 2017



|                            |  |                
|--------------------------- |  | ---------------
|By:                         |  | /s/ Alan Sexton
|Alan Sexton, M.Sc., P.Geol.
No. 65.

#### Indiana, Bloomington & Western Ry. Co. v. John W. James et al.

An action by a shipper against a railroad company for injury to cattle shipped from Olney, Ill., to Green Springs, Ohio, caused as alleged while the cars containing the stock were in the yards at Springfield, Ohio, by a switch engine of appellant which was running at the rate of twenty-five or thirty miles an hour, colliding with the cars and throwing the stock against the cars by which they trampled upon each other and were injured; appellant denied the collision and contended the injury v as due to the restlessness of the stock; no question of law is raised, the contest being upon questions of fact. As the evidence was conflicting, it was the peculiar province of the jury to determine the weight and credit to be given to the testimony of the various witnesses, and their verdict for the shipper is undisturbed.

Judge below, J. W. Langley.

Attorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Gere & Beardsley;

for appellee, Mr. J. M. Weight.

Opinion filed Dec. 4, 1885.

Opinion by Conger, J.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30250 Summary Calendar

STEPHEN A. KLAIMON Plaintiff - Appellant

versus CIGNA COMPANIES, ET AL

Defendants

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant - Appellee

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
STEPHEN A. KLAIMON Plaintiff - Appellant

versus
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant - Appellee

No. 97-30375 Summary Calendar

STEPHEN A. KLAIMON Plaintiff - Appellant

versus CIGNA COMPANIES, ET AL* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.
2 Defendants

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant - Appellee

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
STEPHEN A. KLAIMON Plaintiff - Appellant

versus
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant - Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (95-CV-3597-J & 96-CV-3457-J) February 19, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Stephen A. Klaimon appeal s from summary judgment orders
entered against him on his Title VII and negligent and intentional
infliction of emotional distress claims, as well as from an adverse jury verdict on a defamation claim. We affirm. The district court properly entered summary judgment against
Klaimon on hi s Title VII claim. As we have long stressed, the3

filing of a charge with the EEOC is a prerequisite to instituting

a Title VII action in federal court. S ee National Ass’n of Govern. Emp. v. City Pub. Serv. Bd. , 40 F.3d 698, 711 (5th Cir. 1994).
Klaimon makes conclusory allegations that he pursued relief administratively, yet he produced no record evidence to that
effect. Nor has he demonstrated an equitable entitlement to relief from the administrative exhaustion requirement. Accordingly, his
Title VII claim is barred. Likewise, the district court properly granted summary judgment against Klaimon on his intentional and negl igent infliction of emotional distress claims. Klaimon’s complaint did not allege so egregious a course of conduct on the part of the defendant to satisfy Louisiana’s strict standards for employment-related
intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. S ee Booth v. Intertrans Corp. , 1995 WL 324631, at *17 (E.D. La. May 26, 1995). Similarly, Klaimon has failed to demonstrate how his neglig ent infliction of emotional distress claim is not barred by Louisiana’s workers’ compensation scheme. See La. R.S. 23:1032. Finally, Klaimon raises a number of challenges to the district

court’s discovery rulings and the outcome of the trial. We find
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in making its discovery orders. S ee Krim v. BancTexas Group, Inc. , 989 F.2d 1435, 1441 (5th Cir. 1993). Klaimon’s complaints about the jury
verdict a re largely unsupported by record evidence or legal4

argument and accordingly are without merit. S ee Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
### Exhibit 32.1

### 

### 

### CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Annual Report of American Community Properties Trust (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Michael Wilson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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/ J. Michael Wilson               
|------------------------------------
|J. Michael Wilson                   
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|March 30, 2004