alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### D. McK. CARMICHAEL and others v. JOHN C. MOORE and others.

*Parties*— Official *Bonds, suits on in name of the State.*

Suits upon official bonds made payable to the state must be brought in the name of the state. Bat. Rev., ch. 80, 10, 11. The statute requiring the real party in interest to prosecute does not apply to such actions.

*(Little*v. *Richardson,*6 Jones, 305, cited and approved).

Civil ActioN tried at Spring Term, 1882, of RobesoN Superior Court, before *Shipp, J.*

*Messrs. McNeill & McNeill,*for plaintiffs.

*Messrs. Rowland & McLean,*for defendants.

*30Ruffin, J.

This appeal is taken from a judgment of the superior court overruling a demurrer to the complaint, and but a single point need be considered.

The plaintiffs sue upon the official bond given by the defendant, Moore, as clerk of the superior court of Robeson county, with the other defendants as his sureties — the breach -assigned being his failure to pay over certain moneys which came to his hands for the plaintiffs. The bond is made payable to the state, but the action is brought, and the complaint filed, in the names of the parties interested, and this is one of the grounds of the demurrer.

The bond sued on is the property of the state, and the only authority the plaintiffs have for putting it in suit is that which is specially given in the statute, and which in terms is limited to a suit brought in the name of the state. Bat. Rev., ch. 80, § 11.

Such is the plain provision of the law, long recognized, and supported by the uniform practice of the courts.

The statute, though an ancient one, has been re-enacted since the adoption of the Code, and the court would therefore feel themselves bound by it, as the latest declaration of the law, even in case of a conflict in the provisions of the two instruments.

But in fact there is no such conflict in this particular. The requirement of the Code that “every.action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in-interest,” was never intended to be applied to actions upon official bonds, made payable to, and held by the state, and intended to be sued upon by every person injured by the neglect of the officer, and as many as might be injured, until the whole penalty should be exhausted — and all, not by reason of any property in the bond itself, but by virtue of the authority specially granted by the statute. As the right to sue upon the bond is wholly derived from the statute, it must be exercised in the manner there provided and in uo other way.

As reported, the case of *Little*v. Richardson, 6 Jones, 305, seems to furnish the plaintiffs with a precedent; but upon look*31ing to the original papers, we find that the action was in fact brought in the name of the state. So far as our investigations go, there is not a single authority which supports the manner of bringing their action.

The judgment of the court below overruling the demurrer is therefore reversed, and judgment will be entered here dismissing the action.

Error. Reversed.
II

Calendar No. 651

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 869

For the relief of Mina Vahedi Notash.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 22, 1999

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JUNE 29, 2000

Reported by Mr. HATCH, without amendment

A BILL

For the relief of Mina Vahedi Notash.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MINA

4 VAHEDI NOTASH.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a)

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality

7 Act, Mina Vahedi Notash shall be eligible for issuance of

8 an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of

9 an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon
2

S 869 RS

1 filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa

2 under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status

3 to lawful permanent resident.

4 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Mina Vahedi

5 Notash enters the United States before the filing deadline

6 specified in subsection (c), he or she shall be considered

7 to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if other8 wise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under

9 section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of

10 the date of the enactment of this Act.

11 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

12 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap13 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica14 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees

15 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

16 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

17 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res18 idence to Mina Vahedi Notash, the Secretary of State shall

19 instruct the proper officer to reduce by 4, during the cur20 rent or next following fiscal year, the total number of im21 migrant visas that are made available to natives of the

22 country of the aliens’ birth under section 203(a) of the

23 Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the

24 total number of immigrant visas that are made available
3

S 869 RS

1 to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth under section

2 202(e) of such Act.
Calendar No. 651

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 869

A BILL

For the relief of Mina Vahedi Notash.

JUNE 29, 2000

Reported without amendment
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 43 ) IV-C-9 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:53 AM Sheet 43 of 232P. 2

c r* $

* tPRO* * . UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON

, D.C . 2046 0


### DE C 9198 7 AI RAN D RADIATIO N Mr . Ji mJ . Tozzi , Directo r Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc . 133 3 Ne wHampshir e Ave. , N W Washington , D C 2003 6 Dear Mr . Tozzi : Than k yo u fo r your Novembe r 9 , 198 7 lette r concerning Executive Orde r 1261 2 entitle d "Federalism" . In you r lette r yo u stat e tha t Executiv e Orde r 1261 2 present s principle s an d criteri a for federa l agencie s pertaining t o the divisio n o f stat e governmen t an d federa l governmen t responsibilities . Citin g sectio n 3(d) , you sa yi t appear s "thi s executiv e orde r plainl yapplie s t o th e issu e o f whethe r a federa l agencyshoul d b e proposing nationa l standard s fo r onboar d refuelin g vapo r control s whe n suc h actio n undermine s th e effort s o f Stat e ai r pollutio n agencie s t o pursu e a n alternativ e strategy , stag e I I controls. " Therefore , yo u believ e the propose d post-198 7 ozon e strateg yan d onboar d refueling contro l propose d rulemaking shoul d b e "modifie d t o addres s the Federalis mprinciple s embodie d in Executiv e Orde r 12612. " EP Ai s awar e o f thi s executiv e orde r an d currentl yi s considering th e conten t o f the order . W e inten d t o determin e the applicability , i f any , o f th e executiv e orde r t o the propose d ozon e strateg yan d onboard rulemaking . I t woul d b e prematur e t o attemp t t o specif ya t thi s tim e wha t actions , i f any , EP Awoul d tak e i n accordanc e wit h th e executiv e order . Than k yo u fo r your interes t in thi s matter . Pleas e be assure d tha t w e wil l conside r your view s i n ou r evaluatio n o f th e requirement s o f Executiv e Orde r 12612 . In addition , w e wil l plac e a cop

yo f your lette r i n the publi c docke t for th e onboard rulemaking . Sincerel yyours , 

## / s / Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s
cc : Publi c Docke t A-87-1 1P. 3



# ^a^sr^ M \ { 

# :vm^
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6660
RONALD MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusRONALD JONES, Superintendent, Piedmont Correctional Institution; SHIELA THOMPSON, Programmer, Piedmont Correctional Institution; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of Department of Corrections; LYNN PHILLIPS, Director of Prisons, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CA-95-728-4) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Moore, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Moore v. Jones , No. CA-95-728-4 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 31.01**I, Patrick J. Clawson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for CyberGuard Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;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 of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;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 we have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin 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; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that 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 is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal 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 the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 8, 2005         /s/ Patrick J. Clawson   Patrick J. ClawsonChief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 869 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 869

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                 For the relief of Mina Vahedi Notash.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MINA VAHEDI NOTASH.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Mina Vahedi Notash shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Mina Vahedi Notash enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he or 
she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 
shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Mina Vahedi Notash, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 4, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the aliens' birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.

            Passed the Senate September 28 (legislative day, September 
      22), 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 869

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

                 For the relief of Mina Vahedi Notash.
```
#### PricewaterhouseCoopers, Inc., as Interim Receiver, Monitor and Foreign Representative of Fantom Technologies, Inc., Appellant, v Sonwil Distribution Center, Inc., Respondent.

[773 NYS2d 666]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph G. Makowski, J.), granted February 14, 2003. The order dismissed the petition seeking a stay of a warehouseman’s lien held by respondent and a reduction of the lien.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.
• Del 7 al 13 de agosto, 2023
#### Nale, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. Hunter and others, Defendants: Jansky and another, Interpleaded Defendants and Appellants.

*December 7,*1938

January *10, 1939.*

*92
      *Levi H. Bancroft*of Richland Center, for the appellant, Wencil Jansky.

*M. N. Daffinrud*of Viroqua, for the respondents Bert Hofmeister, Joseph Sterba, and James W. Rosol, trustees of the segregated trust of the Farmers State Bank, and *Harry T. Jordan*of Hillsboro, for the respondent Cora Nale.

Nelson, J.

The sole question for decision here is the same as that determined in *Hofmeister v. Hunter, ante,*p. 81, 283 N. W. 330. This controversy is ruled by the decision in that case, and it is held that the assignment was valid; that it was not against the public policy of this state; *93that the assignment and the warranty deed were given to secure the indebtedness owing Wencil Jansky by Oscar Hunter, and to that extent constitute a valid and enforceable agreement. Upon payment to the Janskys of the amount of the proceeds representing the share of Oscar Hunter in the proceeds of the real estate sold in the partition action involved in this appeal, together with so much of the moneys held by E. V. Wernick, administrator of the estate of Elvah Hunter, deceased, as will liquidate the indebtedness of Oscar Hunter to Wencil Jansky, the latter shall release his interest in and to the balance of the money, if any, held by the administrator.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to enter judgment in accordance with the opinion.
#### ALLISON & ADDISON v. W. J. MADDREY et al. WALTON & WHANN v. W. *J.*MADDREY et al.

*Trial*— Practice—•Judgment—Order *of Arrest*— Stay *of Execution.*

Although not altogether orderly, yet it is not error to render judgment on the debt claimed in the main action before the trial of issues raised in proceedings ancillary thereto.

Civil ACTION, beard at December, 1893, Special Term of NORTHAMPTON Superior Court, before *Whitaker, J.,*upon exceptions to a referee’s report. There bad been an order of arrest issued and served in proceedings ancillary to the main action, and at said term the defendants asked to have their motion to vacate the order of arrest continued, which was allowed, though judgment on the money demand was rendered for the plaintiffs. From so much of the judgment as directed a stay of execution against the persons of the defendants the plaintiffs appealed.

*Mr. R. B. Peebles,*for plaintiffs (appellants).

*Messrs. W. PL Day*and *R. 0. Burton,*for defendants.

Per Curiam :

While it would, perhaps, have been more orderly to have postponed the entry of judgment for the debt until after the trial of the issues raised in the ancillary proceedings, we perceive that his Honor was so happy in his ruling as to do what the plaintiffs asked and at the same time fully protect the rights of the defendants.

No Error..
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

ORDER 

Terri Denise Patterson v William James Patterson III 

Docket No. 347415 

LC No. 17-003184-DM 

Mark J. Cavanagh 

Presiding Judge 

Cynthia Diane Stephens 

Colleen A. O'Brien 

Judges 

The Court orders that the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED, and this Court's 

opinion issued August 15, 2019, is hereby VACATED. A new opinion is attached to this order. 

A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr.. Chief Clerk, on 

NOV 2 1 2019 

Date
ex10_7.htm


 Exhibit 10.7 














 



	Auscrete Corporation 	 





PO Box 847




Rufus OR. 97050







Dear Sirs,












This letter should serve to confirm my wish to purchase up to thirty homes from Auscrete Corporation in the next 3 years. My land, sitting on an elevated portion of the City of Rufus, is well suited for expansion of the community being drawn to the area by the enormous wind farm activity, wineries and world class fishing. This area is perfect for retiring boomers, windsurfers, kiters and fishing enthusiasts, etc.


 


The affordability and attractiveness of the Auscrete product, as well as the proximity of the manufacturing facility, affords the company great competitive and design advantage in supplying me with these homes right in the middle of this burgeoning growth area.


 


Located 90 miles east of the city of Portland, Or. the city of Rufus, Or. is a very scenic drive along Hwy. 84 which parallels the Columbia River the entire way. It provides an easy getaway for weekenders. As more and more people leave the cities in search of simpler lives Rufus will be the perfect place to be.







I also foresee a considerable draw for our development stemming from the "bedroom community" aspect of the nearby city of The Dalles, where Google, among others, has chosen to locate their new facility.


 


As more and more businesses expand to the city of The Dalles, a mere 25 miles away on 1-84, the attractiveness of the small city of Rufus, with its vast natural surroundings, vistas, vineyards, outdoor activities and, now, fresh, new, eco-friendly communities comprised of attractive "green" homes from Auscrete will only become more appealing to families and commuters wishing to have the best of both worlds. Shopping and doing business in The Dalles while living in the cleaner, newer communities being developed in the City of Rufus will be a natural fit.







I look forward to working with Auscrete in the development of my project with Auscrete's homes providing the cornerstone to make it all possible.







Take care,


  





Michael Nilson
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  Schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
condensed  financial  statements  for the  period  ended  March 31,  2000 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         4,598,631
<SECURITIES>                                   152,928
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,547,290
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (810,557)
<INVENTORY>                                    1,678,360
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,982,713
<PP&E>                                         1,988,320
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,013,257)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 30,146,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          12,610,053
<BONDS>                                        225,672
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       11,886
<OTHER-SE>                                     17,299,107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   30,146,718
<SALES>                                        3,942,465
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,942,465
<CGS>                                          1,316,024
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,316,024
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               162,574
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             74,903
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,391,520)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,391,520)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.18)




</TABLE>