alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JAMES HARPER, Adm’r, &c., *v.*NOAH SPAINHOUR.

Where the parties to a covenant for the conveyance of land in consideration of work and labor to be done by the covenantee, agreed *by parol,*that the title should *also*be held as an indemnity against loss to the covenantor in consequence of his surety-ship for the covenantee *Held,*that the agreement was void, under the Statute of Frauds.

Bill in equity, coming before *MiteheTl, J.,*upon an exception to a report, at Spring Term 1870 of Caldwell Court.

No other statement is required than what appears in the Opinion.

The exception of the plaintiffs to the report having been overruled, they appealed.

*Folh*and *F. H. Busbee,*for the appellants.

*Malone*and *Battle & Sons, contra.*

Treating the parties to the covenant as vendor and vendee, the Court will not divest the vendor’s title before he is indemnified according to the contract: 1 Story Eq. Jur. s. 742; *Lloyd*v. *Wheatley, 2*Jon. Eq. 267. Treating Spainhour as a surety, there is a peculiar relation between Oloyd and himself, which warrants the report: 1 Story, s. 323. See *Wil-*
      *630
      *Hams*v. *Ilelme,*1 Dev. Eq. 151; *Williams*v. *Washington, Id.*3 37; *Battle*v. *Hurt,*2 Dev. Eq. 33.

Peaeson, O. J.

Cloyd, the intestate of the plaintiff, executed a covenant, by which the defendant was to convey to Cloyd the house and lot mentioned in the pleadings, when certain work was done by Cloyd for the defendant. The covenant was deposited with a third person for safe keeping. Afterwards, the parties agreed by parol, that the covenant should be held, in order to indemnify the defendant for becoming, with one Jones, co-surety for Cloyd on a note of $100, to one Sudderth.

The exception makes this point: Does a parol agreement, by one having an equitable estate subject to the payment of the purchase money, that such equitable estate shall *also*be subject to a charge as an indemnity to the vendor, come within the operation of the Statute of Frauds.”

Had this been entered on the covenant for title, and been signed by Cloyd, the party to be charged therewith, it would have been binding; but as no such entry was made, the parol agreement is void. It is “a contract to convey an interest in land.” The doctrine of an equitable mortgage by •the deposit of title deeds, has never been adopted by our Courts. The registration act makes the possession of the original title deeds of little importance; the party may.give notice, and read in evidence a certified copy. But this case does not fall under that doctrine, as the covenant, before the parol agreement, had been deposited with a third person for the benefit of both parties, — so there could be no such delivery as to constitute a pledge. In short, it is simply a parol promise to charge an interest in land, and there is nothing to take it ont of the operation of the Statute.

*631Interlocutory order overruling the plaintiffs exception, reversed ,• The exception allowed. This will be certified.

Per Curiam. Reversed.
FIFTH DIVISION

McFADDEN, C. J.,

BROWN and COLVIN, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be

physically received in our clerk’s office within ten

days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.

https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

DEADLINES ARE NO LONGER TOLLED IN THIS

COURT. ALL FILINGS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN

THE TIMES SET BY OUR COURT RULES.

May 26, 2021

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

A19A1538. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LOWNDES

COUNTY v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

VALDOSTA et al.

BROWN, Judge.

In Bd. of Commrs. of Lowndes County v. Mayor and Council of the City of

Valdosta, 309 Ga. 899 (848 SE2d 857) (2020), the Supreme Court of Georgia

reversed Division 1 of this Court’s opinion in Bd. of Commrs. of Lowndes County v.

Mayor andCouncil of the City of Valdosta, 352 Ga. App. 391 (834 SE2d 890) (2019).

309 Ga. at 910 (3). Accordingly, we vacate Division 1 of our prior opinion, adopt the

opinion of the Supreme Court of Georgia, and reverse the trial court’s dismissal of

Lowndes County’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief based upon the bar of

sovereign immunity asset forth in the Supreme Court of Georgia’s opinion. We make

no changes to Division 2 of our opinion.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. McFadden C. J., and Colvin,

J., concur.

2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ABINGTON LITTLE LEAGUE, INC.

v.

GLENBURN TOWNSHIP ZONING

HEARING BOARD

PETITION OF: DAVID DRUCK; MARILYN DRUCK; LYNN SANSKY; CHARLES SANSKY; GERARD O'SULLIVAN; CARA O'SULLIVAN; & MARILYN COSTA :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 199 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth

Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of October, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT 
ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          96,165
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,052
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               158,479
<PP&E>                                       2,847,043
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,466,183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,626,329
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          258,594
<BONDS>                                        856,608
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        58,546
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,349,414
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,626,329
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               511,458
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,999
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (260,636)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (260,636)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (260,636)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.36)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cintech Solutions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Diane M. Kamionka, Chief Executive Officer, and Dino Lucarelli, Chief Financial
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.

CINTECH SOLUTIONS, INC.


By:  /s/ Diane M. Kamionka                            Date: November 14, 2002
       ---------------------------------
      Diane M. Kamionka
      President and Chief Executive Officer

By:  /s/ Dino Lucarelli                               Date: November 14, 2002
       ----------------------------------
      Dino Lucarelli
      Chief Financial Officer
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Forum National
Investments Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F/A for the period ended
September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dan Clozza, Principal Executive and I, Martin
Tutschek, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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/ Dan Clozza                               | 
|-------------------------------------------- | 
|Dan Clozza, Principal Executive Officer      | 
|January 19, 2010                             | 
|                                             | 
|                                             | 
|/s/ Martin Tutschek                          | 
|Martin Tutschek, Principal Financial Officer | 
|January 19, 2010                             | 

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6071

JOSEPH BURTON MIAL , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. ERIK A. HOOKS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroeder , Chief District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv
- 00494

- TDS

- JLW )

Submitted : April 4 , 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD , Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Joseph Burton Mial, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Burton Mial seeks to ap peal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period und er Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 31, 2018. The notice of ap peal was filed on December 17, 2018

. * Because Mial failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade quately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANYS
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRITY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          26,053
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,667
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (341)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         327,004
<DEPRECIATION>                                (55,199)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 366,469
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        329,161
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,174
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   366,496
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,390
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   527
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,524
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,524
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,524
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1. Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)   I, Dr. Thomas Drees, Chief Executive Officer, and David Nelson, Principal Accounting Officer, of Sanguine Corporation (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period September 30, 2008 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Dated:  November 12, 2008 By:  /s/ Dr. Thomas Drees  Dr. Thomas Drees  Chief Executive Officer  By:  /s/  David Nelson David Nelson, Chief Financial Officer  * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sanguine Corporation and will be retained by Sanguine Corporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 888

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the air transportation

tax changes made by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 27, 1999

Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. STEVENS, and Mr. INOUYE)

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the

Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify

the air transportation tax changes made by the Taxpayer

Relief Act of 1997.

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATIONS TO AIR TRANSPORTATION TAX

4 CHANGES MADE BY TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT

5 OF 1997.

6 (a) ELIMINATION OF INFLATION ADJUSTMENT FOR

7 TAX ON CERTAIN USE OF INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL FA8 CILITIES.—Section 4261(e)(4) of the Internal Revenue
2

•S 888 IS

1 Code of 1986 (relating to inflation adjustment of dollar

2 rates of tax) is amended—

3 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘each dol4 lar amount contained in subsection (c)’’ and insert5 ing ‘‘the $12.00 amount contained in subsection

6 (c)(1)’’, and

7 (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ‘‘the

8 dollar amounts contained in subsection (c)’’ and in9 serting ‘‘the $12.00 amount contained in subsection

10 (c)(1)’’.

11 (b) MODIFICATION OF RURAL AIRPORT DEFINI12 TION.—Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 4261(e)(1)(B) of the

13 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining rural airport)

14 are amended to read as follows:

15 ‘‘(i) there were fewer than 100,000

16 commercial passengers departing by air

17 during the second preceding calendar year

18 from such airport and such airport—

19 ‘‘(I) is not located within 75

20 miles of another airport which is not

21 described in this clause, or

22 ‘‘(II) is receiving essential air

23 service subsidies as of August 5,

24 1997, or
3

•S 888 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) such airport is not connected by

2 paved roads to another airport.’’

3 (c) IMPOSITION OF TICKET TAX ON SEGMENTS TO

4 AND FROM ALASKA OR HAWAII OR WITHIN ALASKA OR

5 HAWAII AT RATE IN EFFECT BEFORE THE TAXPAYER

6 RELIEF ACT OF 1997.—Section 4261(e) of the Internal

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rules) is amend8 ed by adding at the end the following:

9 ‘‘(6) SEGMENTS TO AND FROM ALASKA OR HA10 WAII OR WITHIN ALASKA OR HAWAII.—Except with

11 respect to any domestic segment described in para12 graph (1), in the case of transportation involving 1

13 or more domestic segments at least 1 of which be14 gins or ends in Alaska or Hawaii or in the case of

15 a domestic segment beginning and ending in Alaska

16 or Hawaii—

17 ‘‘(A) subsection (a) shall be applied by

18 substituting ‘‘10 percent’’ for the otherwise ap19 plicable percentage, and

20 ‘‘(B) the tax imposed by subsection (b)(1)

21 shall not apply.’’.

22 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

23 this section shall take effect 7 days after the date of the

24 enactment of this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          44,521
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  404,498
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,645
<INVENTORY>                                      7,324
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               771,874
<PP&E>                                         825,077
<DEPRECIATION>                                 148,587
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,656,446
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          358,242
<BONDS>                                        525,619
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           493
<OTHER-SE>                                     710,881
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,656,546
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,962,542
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,839,134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (9,995)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,979
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                195,270
<INCOME-TAX>                                    85,958
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            109,312
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   109,312
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.07


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, P. Blake Dupuis, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Mitcham Industries, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

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

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

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial 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 has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

/s/ P. Blake Dupuis
-----------------------
P. Blake Dupuis
Chief Financial Officer
December 15, 2003