alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anton Junker v. Nicholas Kuhnen.

Statute of Limitations.—An action of debt to recover against a stockholder of an insurance company upon the liability created by section 16 of the General Insurance Law of 1869. *Held,*that the liability sought to be enforced is in the way of a penalty, and to the recovery of such penalty the two year Statute of Limitations is a good plea.

Eeeob to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph E. Gaby, Judge, presiding.

Opinion filed March 31, 1886.

Mr. Feancis Laokneb and Mr. Sidney C. Eastman, for plaintiff in error;

cited Diversey v. Smith, 103 Ill. 391; Weid, enger v. Spruance, 101 Ill. 287; Gridley v. Barnes, 103 Ill. 211.

*479Moran, J.

This was an action of debt commenced November 22, 1875, to recover against plaintiff in error, as a stockholder of the Germania Insurance Company of Chicago, upon the liability created by section 16 of the General Insurance Law of 1869. The declaration alleges debt against the company; that the company is insolvent; that the whole amount of capital of the corporation never was paid in ; that no certificate of such payment was given, or recorded as required, that in fact no more than half the stock had been paid in; and stating cause of action against defendant, alleges: “That on and after said 27th day of July, A. D. 1871, and at the time of the accruing of plaintiff’s said claim, and at the time of the insolvency of said company, the defendant was a corporator and stockholder in said corporation, and had subscribed for and owned his shares of the capital stock thereof at the price named of one hundred dollars for each share, amounting to the sum of one thousand dollars.”

Plaintiff’s loss occurred October 9, 1871.

Defendant below pleaded the two-year Statute of Limitations by a plea in proper form, and to such plea the court sustained a demurrer, and rendered judgment for amount claimed as damages.

The liability sought to be enforced against plaintiff in error is in the way of a penalty. Weidenger v. Spruance, 101 Ill. 278 ; and to the recovery of such penalty, the Statute of Limitations is a good plea. Gridley v. Barnes, 103 Ill. 211. It was error to sustain the demurrer, and the cause must therefore be reversed and remanded.
H:\REGA\SR\GAB\2197598.EXT







October  19,  2001




Pizza  Inn,  Inc.,
5050  Quorum  Drive,  Suite  500
Dallas  TX  75240

Attn:     Ronald  W.  Parker

Ref:     Pizza  Inn,  Inc.  a  Missouri  corporation
     Plano  Parkway  South  of State Highway 121, The  Colony, Denton County, TX
("Property")
     Wells  Fargo  Bank  Loan  No.  2351OE

Dear  Mr.  Parker:

This First Letter Modification Agreement dated October 19, 2001 ("Agreement") is
entered  into  by  and  between  Wells  Fargo  Bank  Texas, National Association
("Lender"),  and  Pizza  Inn,  Inc.,  a  Missouri  corporation  ("Borrower").

On  December 28, 2000, Lender made a loan to Borrower in the principal amount of
EIGHT  MILLION  ONE  HUNDRED  TWENTY-  FIVE  THOUSAND  AND  NO/100THS  DOLLARS
($8,125,000.00)  ("Loan").  Said  Loan  is  secured  by,  among  other things, a
Construction  Deed  of  Trust  with  Absolute  Assignment  of  Leases and Rents,
Security Agreement and Fixutre Filing ("Deed of Trust") dated December 28, 2000,
executed by Borrower as "Grantor" for the benefit of Lender as "Beneficiary" and
recorded  on  December  29, 2000, as Instrument No. 122934, in the Real Property
Records  of  Denton  County,  Texas,  encumbering  real  property described more
particularly therein; and evidenced by a Promissory Note dated December 28, 2000
("Note")  and  other  documentation  necessary  to  perfect  the  Loan  and  any
amendments  or  modifications  thereto (individually and collectively, the "Loan
Documents").

Borrower  has requested, and Lender has agreed to extend the Completion Date (as
set  forth  in  the  Loan  Documents)  from November 1, 2001 to January 1, 2002.

Lender's  willingness  to  extend  the  Completion Date of the Loan Documents is
subject  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  following  conditions  precedent:


     1.     Borrower shall deliver to Lender an unmodified, executed original of
this  Agreement;               and

     2.     All  payments  due and owing to Lender under the Loan Documents have
been  paid  current  as  of  the  effective  date  of  this  Agreement.


<PAGE>
October  19,  2001
Page  2


All  other  terms  and  conditions under each of the Loan Documents shall remain
unmodified  and  of  full force and effect.  Upon satisfaction of the conditions
precedent  described above, the extension of the maturity date of the Note shall
be  in  effect.


"Lender"

WELLS  FARGO  BANK  TEXAS,  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION



By:/s/Paula Kinnison

Title:Vice President







Borrower  hereby  acknowledges  and agrees to the terms and conditions stated in
the  foregoing  Agreement.


"Borrower"

PIZZA  INN,  INC.,
a  Missouri  corporation



By:/s/Ronald W. Parker
     Ronald  W.  Parker,  President
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the removal of a person currently on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of this person is unblocked, and U.S. persons are permitted to engage in lawful transactions with them.

# DATES:

                        This action was issued on October 23, 2024. See                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         for relevant dates.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490 or                         *https://ofac.treasury.gov/​contact-ofac.*

#                     SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                          ( print page 86083)    

## Electronic Availability

                    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:                     *https://ofac.treasury.gov.*

## Notice of OFAC Action

On October 23, 2024, OFAC removed from the SDN List the person listed below, who was subject to prohibitions imposed pursuant to E.O. 13661.

## Individual

1. SEMENOVA, Olena Yurevna (a.k.a. SEMENOVA, Elena Iurevna); DOB 06 Dec 1978; citizen Ukraine; Secondary sanctions risk: Ukraine-/Russia-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR 589.201 and/or 589.209; Passport ER747251 (Ukraine); National ID No. 2882908207 (Ukraine) (individual) [UKRAINE-EO13661].

Lisa M. Palluconi,

Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

[FR Doc. 2024-25068 Filed 10-28-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
Exhibit (21)SUBSIDIARIES OF SUPERIOR BANCORP   NAME OF SUBSIDIARY STATE OF ORGANIZATION   Superior Bank Federally chartered thrift institution   TBC Realty Holdings Corporation Alabama   TBC Real Estate Investment Company, Inc. Alabama   Superior Financial Management, Inc. Alabama   SFS, LLC Alabama   Superior Financial Services Alabama   1st Community Credit Corporation Alabama   Community Insurance Corp. Alabama   Southern Select Insurance, Inc. Alabama   Morris Avenue Management Group, Inc. Alabama   TBC Capital Statutory Trust II Connecticut business trust   Superior Capital Trust I Delaware business trust   Community (AL) Capital Trust I Delaware business trust   People’s Community Statutory Trust I Delaware business trust
#### DAVID V. McCRACKEN *vs.*JAMES R. LOVE.

A statement, in a bjU for the sale or partition of land», and an account of-the rents and profits received by the defendant, that the defendant “has received the rents and profits and appropriated then? to his own ase and, benefit," does not imply that the defendant is possessed adversely to the plaintiff, and is, therefore, no cause of demurrer.

This cause was removed from the ‘Court of Equity of Haywood county to this Court for argument, upon a demurrer to the bill.

So much of the pleadings así is necessary to the understanding of the case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

*W. H. Bailey*for the defendant.

Mo counsel in this Court for plaintiff.

*97SÍANiiT, J.

The bill is filed to obtain from the defendant an account of the profits of certain'land, which, it i* alleged, the parties hold as tenants in common ; and to obtain a sale, or a division- of the same,, in accordance with the rights of the parties, which are set forth.

A .general demurrer to the bill is put in, which, we are informed, is based upon a supposed allegation in the bill that the defendant is in adverse possession, claiming to be sole seized of the. lands.,

We hare examined the bill, and do not find anything which can bear such an interpretation. The words relied upon, are these : li Your orator further showeth that the «aid James R. Lore has received the rents and profit* arising from said lands, and has appropriated the same to his ovrn use and benefit.”

This is but .the common language of one tenant in common, who thinks his cotenant has wronged him, by the reception of profits, and by no means implies .a denial by the defendant of tbe plaintiff’s interest in the land, and .rights to any profits.

The defendant may plead, that he is sole’seized, and thus bring forward tire,matter which he is endeavoring here to interpose to prevent a partition*- but the pleadings are not now in a condition to raise any such point. The demurrer must be overruled; and the defendant required to answer.

This decision must be certified to that end.
I, Zsigmond L. Sagi, certify that

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Scantek Medical Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 14, 2002

                                                 By:  /s/Zsigmond L. Sagi
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Zsigmond L. Sagi, President and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
#### WOOD & HATHAWAY v. T. *J.*HARRELL.

An *affidavit*in an action up *on*a contract for the recovery of money, alleging “that the said T. J. is about to remove from the State ef North Carolina, to become a resident of the State of Virginia,” is not sufficient to warrant an order of arrest of the defendant.

Ihe affidavit must show the grounds upon which the belief of the plaintiff is based, in order that the court may judge the reasonableness thereof.

*(Hughes*v. *Person,*63 N. C. Rep. 648; *Clark*v. *Clark,*64 N. C. Rep. 150; *Wilson vr Barnhill,*64 N. C. Rep. 121, cited and approved.)

This was a Civil ActioN, tried before his Honor, *Eure, J.,*at Spring Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of Chowak county.

*339Tbe action was originally commenced in a Court of Justice of tbe Peace, to recover tbe sum of $85.00, alleged to be clue tbe plaintiff by contract. At tbe time of issuing the summons, the plaintiff filed the following affidavit:

“ J. R. E. Hathaway makes oath :

1. That be is a member of tbe firm of Wood & Hathaway, composed, as above stated, and doing business in Edenton, county aforesaid.

2. That Thos. J. Harrell is indebted to the said firm by contract, with interest to this date, in the sum of $85.54.

3. That the said Thomas J. Harrell is about to remove from the State of North Carolina to become a resident of the State of Yirginia.”

Upon the filing of this affidavit, a capias was issued for the arrest of the defendant.

On the-day of-, 1874, judgment was rendered in the Justice’s Court in favor of the plaintiff, from which judgment the defendant appealed to the Superior Court.

When the ease was called in the Superior Court, the defendant moved the court to vacate the order of arrest, because of the insufficiency of the affidavit.

After argument, the motion was overruled, and it was submitted to the jury to decide whether the facts, stated in the affidavit of the plaintiff, were true. The jury found by their verdict that the defendant was about to remove from the State, whereupon the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Erom which judgment the defendant appealed.

No counsel in this court for the appellant.

*Gilliam*efe *Pruden,*contra.

ByNüm, J.

The affidavit filed did not warrant the order of arrest. The distinction was taken in *Hughes*v. Person, 62 N. C. Rep., 548, between things *done*and things which the party believes *are about t@ be done,*and this distinction wa& *340reaffirmed in *Clark*v. Clark, 64 N. C. Rep., 150. It was therefore necessary for the plaintiffs, in their affidavit, to have set forth the *grounds*of their belief that the defendant was “ about to remove from the State,” in order that tire court might judge the reasonableness thereof. *Wilson*v. Barnhill, 64 N. C. Rep., 121. The court refused to vacate the order of arrest; why, then, afterwards submit the same matter to the revision of a jury? The question of the sufficiency of the affidavit was one of law addressed to the court alone.

There is error.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed and order of arrest vacated.
Exhibit 32.2



Section 1350 Certification,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gregory C. Walker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify for the purposes of Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



| | (i) |  | the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2005 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    GREGORY C.
WALKERGregory C. Walker Senior Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial Officer  June 14, 2005




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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0082

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DANIEL HUNTER FLANSBURG,

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 June 30, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 25 2021

05/25/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0082
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 20, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-21302 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VIDAL FLORES-BARRERA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CR-251-1

-------------------- Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Vidal Flores-Barrera (“Flores”) appeals his conviction of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). Flores contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is unconstitutional. Flores acknowledges that his appellate argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. Nevertheless, Flores seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review.No. 02-21302 -2- This court has repeatedly emphasized that the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is not open to question.
See United States v. Daugherty , 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied 534 U.S. 1150 (2002). Because the factual basis indicated that the firearm Flores possessed was not manufactured in Texas, Flores’ conviction was supported by the evidence. See United States v. Rawls , 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Chad Breland, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 844]

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), both rendered October 20, 1997, convicting him of burglaiy in the first degree (four counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the second *605degree (three counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal impersonation in the first degree under Indictment No. 5313/95, and burglary in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree under Indictment No. 5566/95, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree under Indictment No. 5566/95 is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Appendix	G

FLIGHT	LOG

Alexandra	Hoover

DATE TIME	 LOCATION AIRCRAFT HOURS	OF	FLIGHT		TIME PIC SIGNATURE VO SIGNATURE2
Appendix	G

MONTHLY	MAINTENANCE	LOG

Alexandra	Hoover

DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT

MAINTANENCE	

CHECKLIST

COMPLETED

PIC

name	&	signature NOTES NOTES2 NOTES3
#### A. P. HOLLAND and others v. S. W. ISLER and others.

*Taxation*— Municipal *Power.*

The Commissioners of Goldsboro have the right, under the power granted in the town charter, to impose and collect a monthly tax on resident physicians and lawyers.

CONTROVERSY, submitted without action under C. C. P. *§*315, and heard at Fall Term, 1876, of Wayne Superior Court, before Seymour, *J.*

The plaintiffs are the Mayor, Commissioners and Tax-Collector of the Town of Goldsboro.

The defendants are lawyers and physicians residing in said Town, and resisted the payment of a monthly tax assessed by the plaintiffs under the power granted in the charter of said Town.

His Honor held that plaintiffs had a right to impose and collect the said tax. Judgment. Appeal by defendants.

*2*Mr.*17. IV. *PI.*Smith, for plaintiffs.

*Mr. S.*17. *Isler,*for defendants.

Reads, J.

The Constitution provides that “the General ‘Assembly may tax trades, professions, *&c.”*Art. Y. *§*3. The General Assembly has authorized the Town of Golds-boro “to lay and collect a monthly tax on lawyers, physicians-&e.,” Private Laws, 1866.

The defendants are lawyers and physicians in the Town of Goldsboro, and the Town has laid a tax upon'them which they refuse to pay. This would seem 'to make a clear case against the defendants.

There is no error.

Per CuriaM. . Judgment affirmed»-
#### Borchardt, Appellant, vs. Lincoln County, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Carlyle B. Wurster*of Merrill.

For the respondent: *Donald E. Schnabel*of Merrill.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.