alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. L. BLACKWELL v. J. A. CLAYWELL and others.

Where one of the members of a eo-partnership is adjudicated a bankrupt, the eo-partnership is thereby dissolved-, and the statute of limitations begins to run against any purchaser of a chose in action at the sale by the assignee, from the date of such adjudication.

Case Agrees, hoard before Cloud, J., at Fall Term, 1875, of YadkiN Superior Court.

The following are the facts: Jamos A. Claywell, James L. Blackwell and William Masten entered into partnership for the purpose of merchandizing in the town of Wilkes-boro’ in 1853, for the term of three years. They continued in business only two years, when they eeased to transact business under the written articles of eo-partnership. There has never been any final settlement between the parties.

In 1868, the plaintiff filed his petition in bankruptcy .and was duly adjudged a bankrupt, and Anderson Poindexter was appointed his assignee in bankruptcy. The plaintiff *214received his discharge- in. bankruptcy in 1869-. That the-claim, upon which this suit is based, was filed by the plaintiff in the schedule of credits accompanying his application-. Said claim was duly received and regularly assigned by R. H. Broadfield, Register in Bankruptcy, to said assignee. That said assignee, in 1870, sold all of the assets-of all kinds,, including the claim upon which this action is brought, and the plaintiff became the purchaser.

This action was commenced on the 2nd; day of September, 1874.

The defendant,, Claywell, pleads the Statute of Limitations in bar of the plaintiff’s demand.

It is agreed that if the Court shall be of the opinion that the action is not barred by the Statute of Limitations, that the case shall be referred and an account *taken;*that if the Court should hold otherwise, judgment is- to be rendered! against the plaintiff for cost.

His Honor being of opinion that the action was not barred! by the Statute of Limitations, rendered judgment according; to- the- case agreed, and' thereupon? the defendants- appealed.

*J. G. Bynum,*for the appellants.

*Chmmt*and *McCorJcle,*contra.

ByNum, J.

It is not denied that the- partnership was dissolved, by the plaintiff’s being adjudicated a bankrupt. It is also clear that the Statute of Limitations began to run from that date against any purchaser of the choses in action of the bankrupt at the sale by the assignee. It can make no difference whether such purchaser be a stranger or the bankrupt himself, as the latter, after the dissolution and adjudication, as a purchaser of the effects, stands upon the same footing as a stranger.

It is unnecessary to consider whether the limitation of three years, prescribed by Bat. Rev.,, chap. 17,. sec. 84,, or the *215limitation of two years, prescribed by the Bankrupt Act,applies ; for, according to either, the action is barred.

But as the plaintiff, in effect, admitted in this'Court that he could not recover, nothing more need be said.

There is error. Judgment reversed, and case dismissed at the cost of plaintiff, according to the case agreed.

Pee Cubiam. ' -Judgment reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         9677189
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         8997382
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   66739895
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         9993865
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           9949766
<LOANS>                                      569277842
<ALLOWANCE>                                    4558639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               687805372
<DEPOSITS>                                   549028847
<SHORT-TERM>                                  32030000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            8383622
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       8574893
<OTHER-SE>                                    89788010
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               687805372
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               32390196
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              4556071
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              36946267
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                            18173553
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            19297686
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         17648581
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   129884
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              187255
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                9785494
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                9635215
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     9635215
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   6429988
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.74
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.72
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                    666407
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               4463305
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    35070
<RECOVERIES>                                       521
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              4558639
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           1063883
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        3494756


</TABLE>
P130874c

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0874 0875, 0876, 0877

Focus Ready Draft 9/23/2013

ENGINEER: Hall \ REC 

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

 

 

 

TLV/PEL:

None established. 



Page 1

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 9
P130874c

 

 

 

 

Consumer Use: No 

SAT (concerns) (09/10/2013):

Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: 

 

Migration to groundwater: Moderate 

Health: 2-3 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation 

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 10.00 ppb) 



Page 2

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 9
P130874c

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3A

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: 

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

None.

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0874 0875, 0876, 0877

Page 3

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 9
P130874c

 

 



Page 4

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 9
P130874c



 

 

Page 5

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 9
P130874c

 

 

 

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0874 0875, 0876, 0877

 

Page 6

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 9
P130874c



 

 

 

 

Page 7

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 9
P130874c

Page 8

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 9
P130874c

Page 9

EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 9
#### E. SLUDER v. *W. W.*ROLLINS and others.

*Judgment — Vacation of*— Inexcusable *Negleet.*

1. Where the defendants were in the town in which a court was in session, at which a judgment was rendered against them, and did not communicate the nature of their defense to their counsel or file an answer *Held,*that they were guilty of inexcusable neglect and not entitled to have the judgment vacated under 0. C. P. § 133.

2. In an application to vacate a judgment, the burden is on the applicant, to show a proper ground.

( *Wad-.ldly. Wood,*61 N. 0. 621, cited and approved.)

MotioN, to vacate a Judgment taken by default, made by the defendants and heard at Chambers in Asheville on the^ 29th day of December, 1876, .before *Henry J.*

Upon the facts which sufficiently appear in the opinion». His Honor adjudged that the motion be allowed to the end that the defendants might file an answer and defend the/ action at the ensuing term of the Court.

From this judgment the plaintiff appealed.

*Mr. J. H. Merrimon,*for plaintiff.

No counsel for defendants.

RodMAn, J.

This is an application under C. C. P. § 133, to vacate a judgment as taken by surpise, &c.

¥e are of opinion on the facts stated that the defendants are guilty of inexcusable neglect. One of the defendants-(W. W. Rollins) was in the town where the Court was sitting, on the day when judgment was rendered and on the day before, and for aught that appears could have instructed his counsel as to the defence and could have verified an answer. Another defendant (P. Rollins) had been present *272at the place where the Court sat, during a part of the term but was compelled by business to leave.before the term closed. No reason is assigned why he did not communicate the nature of his defence to his counsel and verify an answer before he left.

It is stated that the defendants were advised that they had a meritorious defence.

But the nature of the defence is not stated, and it does not appear to have been communicated to the gentlemen who represented the defendants as their attorneys at that Court. The circumstances of cases of this class are so various that precedents can seldom be a certain guide. The case most nearly resembling this is *Waddell*v. *Wood,*64 N. C. 624, where the defendant failed to attend Coin’t expecting that his witness would attend. The witness failed to attend, the defendant’s attorney was unable to obtain a continuance and a judgment was given against the defendant. The Court held that the defendant’s failure to attend -was an inexcusable neglect. In every case where there is an application to vacate a judgment on the ground of mistake, &c., the burden is on the applicant to show a proper ground. The least that can be expected of a person having a suit in Court is that he shall give it that amount of attention which a man of ordinary prudence usually gives to his important business.

Judgment appealed from reversed. Let this opinion be certified.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7519
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVEN COOPER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-414-A, CA-96-1151-AM) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Bernard James Apperson, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no revers ible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Cooper , Nos. CR-93-414-A; CA-96-1151-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 1996). We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23
- 0728

_________________ GBSB HOLDING, LLC,

Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. FLATHEAD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA; WHITEFISH VILLAGE, LLC; WILLIAM F. OSWALD AND JULIANA M. OSWALD, Co
-Trustees of the Oswald Family Trust dated May 23, 2016; SHAWN PATRICK JAMES AND KRISTIN PATRICIA BELL; WHITEFISH HILLS VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 AND 2, Defendants and App ellee s . O R D E R

_________________ Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is given an extension of time to and including May 17, 2024, to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 11 2024

04/11/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0728
Exhibit 32



      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                             HORIZON FINANCIAL CORP.
         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an
officer of Horizon Financial Corp. (the "Company") and in connection with this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ("Report"), that:

      1.  the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)
          and 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 Company's financial condition and results of
          operations, as of the dates and for the periods presented in the
          financial statements included in the Report.


/s/Richard P. Jacobson              /s/Kelli J. Holz
----------------------------        --------------------------------
Richard P. Jacobson                 Kelli J. Holz
Chief Executive Officer             Interim Chief Financial Officer


Dated:  November 9, 2009




<PAGE>
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Thomas M.
Finn, certify that: 1.
I have
 reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Speedus Corp.;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 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 the 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.  Date:
August 14,
 2007By:
/s/ Thomas
 M. FinnName:
Thomas M.
 FinnTitle:
Treasurer
 and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer 19
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# U.S. Donates an Additional 10 Million Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines to Bangladesh 

DHAKA, U.S. Embassy in Bangladesh -- The U.S. Government donated another 10 million (1 crore) doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines to Bangladesh via COVAX to help the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare continue expanding vaccinations to teens and adults across the country. This delivery brings the total number of all U.S. vaccine donations to over 85 million (8.5 crore) doses. More than two-thirds of all international COVID-19 vaccine donations to Bangladesh have come from the United States and the American people.The United States continues to work closely with Bangladesh to support every facet of the national COVID-19 vaccination campaign.  This effort includes training over 51,000 healthcare providers and other workers on safely administering vaccines to support Bangladesh’s COVID-19 vaccination roll out across 64 districts. The United States has also donated 18 freezer vans, 750 freezer units, and 8,000 vaccine carriers and helped transport 57 million doses of vaccines to remote areas – for direct administration of 47 million vaccinations.In Bangladesh, the United States has contributed more than $140 million in COVID-19 related development and humanitarian assistance. Globally, the United States has donated $4 billion to support the COVAX effort, which includes support for ultra-cold chain storage, transportation, and safe handling of COVID-19 vaccines, making the United States the world’s largest donor for equitable global COVID-19 vaccine access.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
#### James Hatton, Appellant, v Charles P. Gassler et al., Respondents.

[631 NYS2d 757]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.), dated June 6, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant.

The trial court committed reversible error when it received into evidence an unredacted police report pertaining to the accident in question. The report contained the hearsay statements of the defendant Charles P. Gassier and his witness, and was not admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule because they were under no business duty to make such statements *(see, Johnson v Lutz,*253 NY 124; *Cover v Cohen,*61 NY2d 261; *Conners v Duck’s Cesspool Serv.,*144 AD2d 329; *Casey v Tierno,*127 AD2d 727). In addition, the report contained a police officer’s conclusions as to the cause of the accident even though the officer was not an eyewitness to the accident and his conclusions were not based upon a "postincident expert analysis of observable physical evidence” *(Murray v Donlan,*77 AD2d 337, 347; *see also, Connors v Duck’s Cesspool Serv., supra).*The court’s error cannot be deemed harmless because the report bore on the ultimate issue to be determined by the jury *(see, Conners v Duck’s Cesspool Serv., supra; Casey v Tierno, supra).*

The admission of the written, post-accident statements given to the police by the defendant Charles P. Gassier and his witness was likewise error since those statements contained inadmissible, self-serving declarations and, moreover, constituted impermissible bolstering of their trial testimony *(see,*Richardson, Evidence §§ 357, 519 [Prince 10th ed]; *Aurnou v Craig,*184 AD2d 1048; *Shufelt v City of New York,*80 AD2d 554; *Heiney v Pattillo,*76 AD2d 855).

The plaintiff correctly contends that the Supreme Court erred in admitting his hospital record into evidence without redacting the toxicology report therefrom because the record clearly establishes that this report was not germane to the plaintiff’s diagnosis or treatment *(see, Gunn v City of New York,*104 AD2d 848, 849). However, this error was harmless in view of the fact that the toxicology report, which consisted of the *698results of testing performed upon the plaintiff’s blood, was properly admitted into evidence on its own, as a business record, with the proper evidentiary foundation *(see,*CPLR 4518 [a]). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.
No. 90-1745.

#### United States *v.*Wilson.

C. A. 6th Cir. [Cer-tiorari granted, *ante,*p. 807.] Motion of the Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**** 

**CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PhytoMedical Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Raymond Krauss, Chief 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 results of operations of the Company. 

 

**** 

Date:  August 13, 2009                                              /s/ Raymond Krauss

                                                                                      Raymond Krauss

                                                                                      Chief Financial Officer

 

 

----