alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Present, Chancellors Rutledge and Mae shall.]

NOVEMB. 1801.

#### Thomas Smith *vs.*John E. Poyas.

*A*devisee For life restrained from cutting down the woodland ofthe estate, and from planting the new grounds.

Restrained also from using- the timber for any other purposes than fuel, fencing, &c.

Devisee for life, bound to contribute one fourth of the expence for repairing the buildings

Commissioners to estimate and report the expence of necessary repairs.

Tenant for life to deliver up title deeds to devisee in fee.

BY a decree' of this court given in June, 1788, (vide 1st vol. of these reports, page 156,) it was decided that Mrs. Poyas was entitled together with her sisters, under her fathers will and a codicil thereto, to a residence on his Goose Creek plantation, and to plant thereon, during their lives, after which the estate was to go to the complainant in fee simple.

Mr. and Mrs. Poyas believing themselves entitled to clear the woodlands, and to plant the new land, began, to clear and to plant'according to their own opinion of their rights.

The complainant being of a different opinion filed his bill in this Court, to obtain an injunction restraining them from clearing the wood land, and planting the new grounds ; and to restrain them generally in the use of the timber; and to oblige the defendants to keep the buildings in repair. At the hearing, the fact of the clearing the wood land was established ; and indeed the defendants insisted on their right to do so.

After the cause was argued, Chancellor Rutledge1 delivered the decree of the court.

It is ordered and decreed that the defendant be enjoined and restrained from committing further waste on the plan-tati'on or tract of land in bill mentioned, by cutting down *66the trees or clearing the oak land or felling the trees Oí? the pine timber land, except what may be necessary for fuel or other plantation use, or fencing in the fields. The injunction not to extend to old fields cleared or plant* e¿ jn the lifetime of testator. That complainant and defendant each make choice, of one person who shall choose a third to examine the state or condition of the dwelling and out houses on the plantation, and estimate the sum that will be necessary to put them into tenantable repair, and make their return thereof to this Court, by the first day of the next term. That the defendant be chargeable and liable for one fourth part of the expence of repairing the said huildings, and forthwith repair the same, as far as the expence with which he is chargeable, may' extend. Also that defendant do forthwith deliver to complainant-all the title deeds'and grants for the said land, which he has in his possession. And lastly, that the costs of suit be paid by defendant.

Desaussure and Fobjd, Ward and Parker fot Complainant. Pringle for defendant.
#### James H. Woolfolk, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Gertrude J. Woolfolk, defendant in error.

*1. The*confession of the respondent as to acts of adultery since his marriage, uncorroborated by other circumstances, will not authorize the granting of a divorce.

2. The libelant in a divorce case is an incompetent witness to prove adultery on the part of respondent.

3. Newly discovered evidence of an independent fact, not merely cumulative, is ground of new trial.

Husband and wife. Divorce. Confessions. Evidence. Witness. New trial. Before Judge Hill. Bibb Superior Court. October Term, 1874.

For the" facts of this case, see the decision.

Whittle & Gustin, for plaintiff in error.

Lanier & Anderson, Hill & Harris; B. H. Hill, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff in the court below filed her libel for a divorce against the defendant, alleging as grounds therefor cruel treatment, habitual drunkenness, and adultery with a colored woman named Tabitha. On the trial there was much evidence introduced by the respective parties. The jury found a verdict for the defendant. A motion was made for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law, contrary to the evidence, and strongly and decidedly against the weight of the evidence, and on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The court granted a new trial on the last ground specified in the motion, whereupon the defendant excepted.

1. There is evidence in the record of the defendant’s unlawful intimacy with the negro woman, Tabitha, previous to his marriage with the plaintiff, but there was no other legal evidence of that fact since the marriage, except his confession, which, under the statute, was not sufficient unless corrobora*662ted by other circumstances, to authorize the granting of a divorce.

2. The évidence of the plaintiff, so far as that evidence went to prove adultery on the part of the defendant, was incompetent and illegal: Code, sec. 3855.

3. The newly discovered evidence, therefore, of Graybill and Phillips, that they had seen the defendant visiti'ng the house of the woman, Tabitha, *after*his marriage, was not merely cumulative evidence as to the question of adultery, but was an independent fact — a corroborating circumstance in support of the truth of his confession made to Mrs. Wyche. The fact that the defendant visited the woman, Tabitha, after his marriage has the more significance as to the question of adultery, because she was his kept mistress before his marriage with the plaintiff. This newly discovered evidence, when taken in connection with the other evidence in the record, probably might produce a different result on the next trial of the case. In view of the facts disclosed in the record, there was not such a manifest abuse of the discretion of the court below in granting the new trial as will authorize this court to control it.

Let the judgment be affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 63 (Thursday, April 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17822-17823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07589]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Community Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Matching Grant 
Program--Availability of Application for Federal Financial Assistance

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the availability of the 
application package for the 2016 Community Volunteer Income Tax 
Assistance (VITA) Matching Grant Program.

DATES: Application instructions are available electronically from the 
IRS on May 1, 2015 by visiting: IRS.gov (key word search--``VITA 
Grant''). Application packages are available on May 1, 2015 by visiting 
Grants.gov and searching with the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance (CFDA) number 21.009. The deadline for submitting an 
application to the IRS through Grants.gov for the Community VITA 
Matching Grant Program is May 31, 2015. However, because this date 
falls on a non-workday the deadline is being extended until Monday, 
June 1, 2015. All applications must be submitted through Grants.gov.

ADDRESSES: Internal Revenue Service, Grant Program Office, 401 West

[[Page 17823]]

Peachtree St. NW., Suite 1645, Stop 420-D, Atlanta, GA 30308.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Grant Program Office via their email 
address at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#024570636c762c52706d6570636f2c4d64646b6167426b70712c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="723500131c065c22001d1500131f5c3d14141b1117321b00015c151d04">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for the Community Volunteer Income 
Tax Assistance (VITA) Matching Grant Program is contained in the 
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public 
Law 113-235, signed December 16, 2014.

    Dated: March 23, 2015.
Mikki Betker,
Chief, Grant Program Office, IRS, Stakeholder Partnerships, Education & 
Communication.
[FR Doc. 2015-07589 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE CODE 4830-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. CL AU DI A FARI AS- SANCHEZ, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 11- 30214 D . C . N o. 2: 10 -c r- 06 09 7-L R S -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on L onnyR . S uko, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d Jul y17, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S an dS IL V E R M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C l audi a F ar i as -S anchez app ea l s f rom the 30 –m on th sent ence i m po se d fol l ow i ng her gui l ty- pl eaconv i ct i on for bei ng foun d i n the U ni t ed S t at es af t er d e p o rt a t i o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , an dw e a f

f i rm. 

# FI LED JU L 19 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 11- 30214

F a r ia s - S an c h e z c o n te n d s th a t th e s e n te n c e w a s s ub s tan tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le . H e rs e n te n c e b e lo w th e G u id e lin e s r an g e w a s n o t s ub s tan tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le in l i ghtof the t ot a l i tyof

the c i r c um s t anc e s a nd the 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) s e nt e nc i ng f a c to r s . See G al l

v. U ni ted States , 55 2 U . S . 38 , 51 (200 7). AF F I RME D.
Exhibit 32.1  Certification  Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:  (1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;  (2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.  By:Inland Real Estate Investment CorporationGeneral PartnerBy:/s/ Brenda G. GujralName:Brenda G. GujralTitle:President of the General Partner andprincipal executive officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.Date:July 29, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.1


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


         I, James A. Tilton,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350, as
adopted  pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the
Quarterly  Report of Twistee  Treat  Corporation  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended August 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained in
such  Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents  in all  material  respects  the  financial
condition and results of operations of Twistee Treat Corporation

Date:  October 24, 2005


By:/s/ James A. Tilton
----------------------------
James A. Tilton
President and Chief Financial Officer
**Good Neighbor Environmental Board** 

### Agenda **Thursday, March 22, 2012** 12:00 (EST) **Welcome and Introductions**

 Mark Joyce**,** Associate Director GNEB Acting Designated Federal Officer

 Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Acting Director U.S. EPA Office of Federal Advi sory Committee Management and Outreach

 Diane Austin, Chair Good Neighbor Environmental Board

 Board Members and Speakers 12: 3 0 – 12: 4 0 **Overview of Agenda**

 Diane Austin, Chair Good Neighbor Environmental Board 12: 4 0 – 12: 55 **Department of Interior’s WaterSMART Program**  **– Colorado River Study** 

 Carly Jerla, Co-Study Manager Bureau of Reclamation 12:5 5 – 1:1 5 **Environmental Flows and the SB 3 Process**

 Ron Ellis, Manager Water Rights Permitting & Availability Section Water Availability Division Texas C ommission on Environmental Quality 1:1 5 – 1:30 **NGO Perspective and Commentary**

 Mary Kelly, Environmental Analysis and Advocacy Parula, LLC 1:30 – 1:50 **Discussion** 1:50 – 2:10 **Border Environment Cooperation Commission and Water Infrastructure**

**Overview and Projects**   Maria Elena Giner, General Manager Border Environment Cooperation Commission2: 1 0 – 2: 2 0 **Break**

2: 2 0 – 4 : 2 0 **Report out from Workgroups on 15 th**  **Report**

2:20 – 2:30 Context – Timothy Trevino 2:30 – 2:40 Water Supply – Sally Spener 2:40 – 2:50 Water Quality – David Henkel 2:50 – 3:00 Water Treatment – Robert Apodaca 3:00 – 4:20 General Discussion – Entire Board 4 : 20 – 4 : 30 **Public Comments** 4: 30 – 5:00 **Board Business**

 Membership Recruitment  June Meeting Discussion  Interaction with Congress 5: 00 **Adjourn**
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Holli C. Nichols, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                                     
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ HOLLI C. NICHOLS                                
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Holli C. Nichols                                    
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08628]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74642A; File No. SR-NYSE-2014-59]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; 
Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial 
Amendment No. 1, Amending Rule 13 and Related Rules Governing Order 
Types and Modifiers; Correction

April 9, 2015.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission published a document in 
the Federal Register on April 9, 2015, concerning a Notice of 
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment 
No. 1, Amending Rule 13 and Related Rules Governing Order Types and 
Modifiers. The document contained a typographical error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Kuan, Division of Trading and 
Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20549, (202) 551-5624.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of April 9, 2015 in FR Doc. 2015-8107, on 
page 19097, in the fourth line in the first column, correct the date 
``February 26, 2014'' to ``February 26, 2015.''

    Dated: April 9, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08628 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Sl()-l()()3()9-()2 7 

## Springfield-Branso n NATIONA L AIRPOR T 230 0 n airpor t blv d st e 10 0 Springfiel d missour i 6580 2 p 417.868.050 0 f417.868.050 1 March 1 , 201 0 The Honorabl e Raymon d H . LaHoo d Secretar y U.S . Department

o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Docket DOT-OST-2010-003 4 Dea r Mr . Secretary : Than k you fo r th e opportunity to expres s m y suppor t fo r th e applicatio n fo

r antitrus t immunit y an d propose d join t

busines s agreemen

t filed b y America

n Airline s an d Japa

n Airlines . Th e propose d allianc e betwee n thes e tw o airline s i s vital fo r oneworl d to compete effectivel y wit h th e Sta r an d SkyTea

malliance . Thi s increase d inte r allianc e competitio n wil l i n tur

n enhanc e th e benefit s o f

th e Department' s Ope n Skie s polic y - first b y solidifyin g U.S.-Japan Ope n Skies , then b y servin g a s afoundatio n fo r furthe r liberalizatio n acros s Asia . Afte r athoroug h review , I encourag e th e Department o f Transportatio n t o approv e thi s applicatio n a s i t

woul d enabl e thes e oneworl d allianc e airline s to wor k closel y together

t o deliver higlil y competitiv e air

transportatio n sei-vices . Approval fo r AA/JAL allianc e wil l hav e apositiv e impac t

o n ai r trave l b y offering customer s more service , schedulin g an d pricin g option s an

d wil l hel p to ensure tha

t customer s continu e t o benefi t fi-omhavin g thre e competitiv e ai r

alliance s t o choos e fi"om. I urg e you to quickl y approv e thi s application .

AAE Springfield-Branso n National Airpor t Directo r o f Aviatio n 230 0 N . Airpor

t Blvd , Suit e 100 Springfield , Missouri , 6580 2 gcvr@.f l vspringfield.co m

•2?% ?
22555

#### Ex parte Charles E. SIMONS, III, Receiver-Respondent. In re Robert LENNON and Todd G. Cole, Appellants v. Allison WADE, Defendant.

(344 S. E. (2d) 151)

Supreme Court

*2*Charles E. Simons, III,*Aiken, *pro se.*

*Charles Porter*and *Elizabeth Van Doren Gray*of *McNair, Glenn, Konduros, Corley, Singletary, Porter & Dibble, P.A.,*Columbia, *for appellants.*

*John W. Harte, Jr.*of *Williams, Johnson, Buchanan & Harte,*Aiken, *for defendant.*

Heard April 21, 1986.

Decided May 19, 1986.

*Per Curiam:*

The sole issue in this appeal is the reasonableness of the compensation awarded to a court-appointed receiver.1 The underlying action was for partition among three owners of real and personal property known as Joye Cottage in Aiken, South Carolina. The trial judge awarded the receiver compensation in the amount of $25,000.00 plus costs of $170.29. We affirm the cost award, but reverse the.fee, and remand for a redetermination of the fee.

In his order, the trial judge based the award upon “... duly and carefully considering the proceedings and detailed testimony herein and, further, upon my knowledge of the complexities and difficult circumstances confronted by the Receiver ...”. We hold this conclusion is insufficient to support the award.

Generally, the fixing of the compensation for a receiver is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. *Turner v. Washington Realty,*125 S. C. 109, 114 S. E. 30 (1923). However, the exercise of that discretion is not unbridled. *See*75 C. J. S. *Receivers*§ 389.

In *Bergeson v. Sessions,*561 S. W. (2d) 551 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977), the Texas Court of Civil appeals set forth standards in fixing receiver compensation. Generally, *3the fee is based on the value of the receiver’s services, which is determined by consideration of six factors:

> (1) the nature, extent and value of the administered property;

> (2) the complexity and difficulty of the work;

> (3) the time spent;

> (4) the knowledge, experience, labor and skill required of, or devoted by the receiver;

> (5) the diligence and thoroughness displayed; and

> (6) the results accomplished.

*Id.*at 554-55.

We agree with the criteria set forth in *Bergeron*and adopt them as the rule in this State; however, we also adopt two additional factors to be considered:

> (7) the amount of money coming into the receiver’s hands;2 and

> (8) the fair value of the services rendered measured by conservative, private business standards.

*See Feemster v. Schurkman,*291 So. (2d) 622 (Fla. App. 1974); *Coskery v. Roberts & Mander Corp.,*200 F. (2d) 150 (3rd Cir. 1952).

Accordingly, the cost award is affirmed. The fee award is reversed and the matter remanded for reconsideration consistent with this opinion.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.

1

 Respondent, who performed a total of 93 hours of work, was the second receiver in this matter, substituted when the original receiver resigned.

2

 This seventh criteria may appear duplicative of the sixth; however, a subtle difference exists. It is conceivable that a receiver may achieve beneficial results other than simply assembling funds.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001105858
<NAME> OXY GENERAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           8,175
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,175
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,175
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              812
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,637)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,175
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,225)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (14)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,239)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,239)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,239)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>