alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOHN GREEN *v.*DEMPSEY BROWN.

A note for money dated May 9tli 1863, is_ liable'to 'tbe opératióñ of the - *seals law,*notwithstanding that-it is payable in “ good bankable currency.” ■ ....■ .. • , ■

*(Laws v. Rycroft, ante*100, approved.)

Covenant, upon a note given as the price of. a horse,• tried before *Cloud, J.,*at Spring Term 1870, of Davidson, Court.

The note, was a plain one, for “ four hundred dollars in-good bankable currency,” payable at twelve months', with, interest from .date, and was dated May -9th 1863,

The main question below was, whether .it washable to be-scaled, or was payable in specie. • -Upon-this point witnesses; were, examined; and his Honor charged..the- jury, that if they .were to be believed, the expression, “ in good bankable-currency,” meant currency equivalent t,o gold- and silver.

Verdict and judgment accordingly; .the defendant'appealed,

*'Gilmer,*foi the appellant,

*Mendenhall*and *T.. J. Wilson, contra,*

Settle, J.

The bond upon which this suit is brought, was'executed during the war, and if nothing had .been said *554.as to the currency in which it was solvable, the presumption would have been, under our recent legislation, that it was solvable in Confederate money. Is this presumption rebutted, when the parties in endeavoring to fix a currency in which it may be discharged,' use terms so indefinite as to be unintelligible *%*We think not.

The words ‘‘good, bankable currency” must be interpreted according to the state of the facts and the popular understanding of these terms at the time the note was given *Laws*v. *Rycroft, ante*100.

From this standpoint we have endeavored to reconcile these terms,, but have been unable to do so. Bankable currency may have meant either bank notes, or Confederate Treasury notes, for the banks were dealing in both in 1863 and 1864. But when they prefix the word “ good ” to the “ bankable currency ” of that period, we are as unfortunate as the witnesses who were examined to explain these terms, .and confess our inability to understand them. Indeed there was no such thing at that time as “ good bankable currency.” They could not have used the word “ good ” in the sense of par, for none of the currency then used was at par. It may be that they employed, the word “good” as distinguished from counterfeit; this, however, is all conjecture. But viewing the transaction in the light of that day, we can safely say that they did not intend by these terms to make the bond payable in gold and silver. The result will be, if we discard these words as unintelligible, that the bond will stand like all others of that date, and the presumption will be that it is solvable in Confederate currency; but . as it was given for a horse, that fact may be shown, and the value of the horse will be the value of the contract.

There is error. Let this be certified, &c.

Peb Cttbiam. Neversed.
EXHIBIT 32(a)
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADDED BY
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Provident Community Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Dwight V. Neese, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.
 
 
 /s/ Dwight V. NeeseDwight V. NeesePresident and Chief Executive Officer
  
 Date: November 10, 2009
#### State of Iowa v. Alfred Boone, Appellant.

Transcript exhibits no error.

*Appeal from Johnson District Court.*— Hon. S. H. Fairall, Judge.

Thursday, February 1, 1894

*Affirmed.*

The Attorney General for the state.

Per Curiam.

Appellant pleadedguilty to an indictment charging him with willfully, maliciously and feloniously cutting, breaking and injuring three telegraph wires owned by the Western Union Telegraph Company, and in the possession, use, and control of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment was entered that he be confined in the state penitentiary at Anamosa at hard labor for a term of eighteen months, and for costs. Defendant appealed, and the case is submitted on a transcript alone. We have examined the transcript with care, and fail to discover therefrom any errors in the proceedings. The judgment of the district court is, therefore, affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. $
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         630,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,259,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   440,000
<INVENTORY>                                 14,708,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,139,000
<PP&E>                                       8,549,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,857,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,725,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,151,000
<BONDS>                                     38,047,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (474,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,725,000
<SALES>                                      2,710,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,710,000
<CGS>                                        1,728,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,728,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,207,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,374,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,602,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,472,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,130,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,130,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 591

To authorize a feasibility study for the preservation of the Loess Hills in

western Iowa.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 11, 1999

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To authorize a feasibility study for the preservation of the

Loess Hills in western Iowa.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

4 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

5 (1) the Loess Hills spread across 600,000 acres

6 of land in Fremont, Harrison, Mills, Monona, Plym7 outh, Pottawattamie, and Woodbury counties in

8 western Iowa;
2

•S 591 IS

1 (2) soil deposited by wind over many centuries

2 formed the Loess Hills, which support several spe3 cies of rare native prairie grass;

4 (3) the Loess Hills and 1 other similar forma5 tion in China are the only 2 formations of their kind

6 in the world; and

7 (4) the Loess Hills are rare and valuable natu8 ral formations of the State of Iowa and of the

9 United States.

10 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to author11 ize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility

12 study to determine what measures should be taken to pre13 serve the Loess Hills in western Iowa.

14 SEC. 2. FEASIBILITY STUDY.

15 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the

16 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior

17 shall conduct a study to determine what measures may

18 be taken to preserve the Loess Hills in western Iowa.

19 (b) CONSULTATION.—In completing the study under

20 subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with representa21 tives of—

22 (1) State and local agencies;

23 (2) nonprofit groups; and

24 (3) other interested parties.
3

•S 591 IS

1 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after the com2 pletion of the study under subsection (a), the Secretary

3 shall submit a report describing the results of the study

4 to—

5 (1) the Committee on Energy and Natural Re6 sources of the Senate; and

7 (2) the Committee on Resources of the House

8 of Representatives.

9 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

10 There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out

11 this Act $275,000.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                 Pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350


      The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the First Quarter ended March 31, 2004 of Nanobac Pharmaceuticals,
Incorporated (the "Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                    /s/ John D Stanton
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    John D Stanton
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    May 17, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nanobac Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated and will be retained by it and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of the
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### ROSANNA KIRK *v.*BENTON BARNHART, Adm’r., &c.

A motion to dismiss an appeal, because it does not *appear*'that a case-had been made, and served as prescribed by the Code oí Civil Procedure, will not be granted, when an opposing counsel states on oath,, in this eourt, that all the requirements of the C. C. P. were complied, with in the court below.

A plaintiff, as a witness, cannot prove her services rendered her deceased ■ mother, in an action against her mother’s administrator, to recover.' the value of such services.

Civil ActioN tried before *Señen cl</.,*at the July Term, 1875, of Cabarrus Superior Court.

The pleadings were oral, and the ease came up by appeal. from the judgment of a Justice of the Peace.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, as the administrator of" her mother, Susan Seaman, for one hundred and fifty dollars, for services rendered by her to her mother, during the last eighteen months of her life.

The plaintiff was offered ■ as a witness, to prove that her • mother was old and infirm; and that about eighteen months before the death of the latter, the plaintiff and two of her-children had moved to the home of her said mother, to aid is. taking care of her and in nursing and supporting her. This testimony was objected to by the defendant, but was admitted by the court. Defendant excepted.

Defendant also objected to a recovery, on the ground, that no demand was made before suit brought, and that this court had no jurisdiction of the action.

The court overruled these two objections, and submitted the . case to the jury, on the facts proved by the plaintiff and. *others;*and charged, that as the plaintiff was twenty-one years old, the law presumed she worked for herself; and that the burthen was on the defendant to show that! the services rendered were to be gratuitous and voluntary,,or.reciprocal.

*654To this charge the defendant excepted, and asked bis Honor to charge: That the relation of the parties rebutted the presumption of a special contract.

Yerdict for the plaintiff. Motion for a new trial; motion refused. Judgment, and appeal by defendant.

*Barringer*and *Mirntgo-nerv,*for appellant.

*Shipp*<6 Bailey, contra.

Rodman, J.

Mr. Bailey, for the plaintiff, moved to dismiss the appeal, because it did not appear, that .a case had been made out by the appellant and served on the plaintiff or his counsel, within five days after the entry of appeal taken, as required by C. C. P., sec. 301. It appeared, however, from the affidavit of Mr. Bai’ringer, that the case had been stated and served in due time on Mr. Bong, one of the attornies for the plaintiff, who resided in the county where the action was tried, and had been returned by him without objection, and filed with the clerk. The motion to dismiss ' the appeal is therefore refused. The motion of defendant for a *certiorari*is also refused.

The Judge clearly erred in receiving the plaintiff as a witness to prove the services rendered by her to the deceased. C. C. P., sec. 343.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed and *'venire de novo.*
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Kathleen Ligocki, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tower Automotive, Inc.,certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June30, 2006 of Tower Automotive, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis 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 presentedin this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b) Omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 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 andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 and oroperation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely 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 aa significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: September 15, 2006     By: /s/ Kathleen Ligocki     Kathleen Ligocki    President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 159 (Wednesday, October 1, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10304]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      PRIVACY PROTECTIONS--S. 2321

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that, today, after 
several discussions, the Bush administration and lead sponsors of the 
E-Government Reauthorization Act of 2008, S. 2321, have accepted an 
amendment I have drafted to ensure that Americans' privacy comes first 
when the Government purchases and uses their most sensitive personal 
information. My amendment requires that Federal agencies must conduct 
privacy impact assessments before employing outside contractors that 
use and market Americans' sensitive personal data.
  The addition of privacy protections to the E-Government 
Reauthorization Act will help to better protect all Americans from the 
growing threats of data breaches, identity theft, and other cyber 
crimes. I am particularly pleased about the compromise reached today 
because I am a proud supporter of this bill. In 2002, I was an original 
cosponsor of E-Government Act, and in the intervening years, I have 
worked to promote and strengthen this law.
  The E-Government Reauthorization Act is a good bill that will now be 
even better because of the privacy protections added by my amendment. 
Recently, the Government Accountability Office released a report on 
lessons learned about the Government data breaches at the Veterans' 
Administration and elsewhere. That report found that Government 
contractor responsibilities for preventing and responding to data 
breaches should be clearly defined. My amendment takes a small but 
important step toward addressing the growing problem of lax data 
security by Government contractors by making sure that Americans' 
privacy rights are not compromised when they entrust their sensitive 
personal information to our Government.
  I thank the lead sponsors of this bill for working with me on 
compromise privacy language for this bill. I also thank the many 
stakeholders who support this bill and my privacy amendment, including 
the Center for Democracy and Technology, Symantec, and the Cyber 
Security Industry Alliance.
  I urge all Senators to support and pass this important legislation.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19354-19355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07369]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending March 16, 
2013

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation 
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2013-0048.
    Date Filed: March 11, 2013.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Resolution 787.
    PSC Minutes 29 through 43--34th.
    PSC held in Abu Dhabi on 18-19 October 2012.
    Memorandum.
    PSC/RESO/154 dated 4 January 2013.

[[Page 19355]]

    Intended Effective Date: June 1, 2013.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Acting Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2013-07369 Filed 3-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.17

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2

                                       TO

                    AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Amendment No. 2 to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement is
entered into effective September 1, 1999 by and between CB Richard Ellis
Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the "Company") and James J. Didion
("Executive").

                                   Witnesseth:

         Whereas CBRE and Executive have heretofore entered into an Amended and
Restated Employment Agreement dated as of March 3, 1999 as amended and Amendment
No. 1 dated May 18, 1999 (collectively the "Employment Agreement"); and

         Whereas the parties now wish to provide that Executive's salary under
the Employment Agreement as amended shall be subject to adjustment to reflect
changes in the cost of living.

         Now therefore the parties hereby agree as follows:

         Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement is further amended by adding
the following paragraph at the end thereof.

         "Every September 1 (commencing September 1, 2000) Employee's annual
salary for the next twelve months shall be adjusted by multiplying the salary in
effect on the immediately preceding August 31 by a fraction the numerator of
which is one hundred plus the percentage change in the Applicable Index from
September 1, 1999 to the September 1 as of which the calculation is being made
and the denominator of which is the level of such index at the preceding
September 1. In the event the Applicable Index is not available until a date
later than the September 1 as of which an adjustment is being made then the
adjustment shall be made as soon as reasonably possible after the Applicable
Index is available and Employee's next salary check shall reflect the adjustment
for the period during which the Applicable Index was not available. The
Applicable Index means the United States Labor Department Cost of Living Index
(San Francisco Bay Area)."

         Except as specifically set forth herein the Employment Agreement shall
continue in accordance with its terms.

         In witness whereof the parties have caused this Amendment No. 2 to be
executed this 15th day of September 1999.

                                    CB Richard Ellis Services, Inc.

                                    By:        /s/ Ray Wirta
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Ray Wirta,
                                               Chief Executive Officer


                                    Employee:  /s/ James J. Didion
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               James J. Didion