alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hoyle *v.*Hoyle.

Opinion delivered March 31, 1930.

*466*Wilson <& Martín*and *Compere & Compere,*for appellant.

*Clary Ball,*for appellee.

ICirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). The deed from C. T. Hoyle, to whom Chas. L. Hoyle and appellant, his widow, had conveyed the lands by a regular warranty deed, reconveying the land to C. L. Hoyle was not recorded until two or three years after C. T. Hoyle and his wife had conveyed the same tract of land to *R. L.*Hoyle by a warranty deed duly recorded for a recited consideration of $1,500. Appellant, the widow of Chas. L. Hoyle, the father of these two sons and the former owner of the land, was not entitled to the land in controversy as the homestead of decedent, her husband, since decedent was not the owner or in possession of same at his death if the deed from C. T. Hoyle to R. L. Hoyle was a valid conveyance of the property as' it appeared to be.

She brought suit to cancel the conveyance and to secure possession of the property claimed as a homestead and her dower right therein, and the court decreed a cancellation of the deed from C. T. to R. L. Hoyle and her right to a homestead therein, as the widow of C. L.' Hoyle, deceased, and also her dower.

The court did not err ill holding she was not entitled to rents for use of the land, of which she was not in possession and the title of which appeared to be in R. L. Hoyle, until after she established her right thereto, and procured the cancellation of the deed to R. L. Hoyle, and a decree for the possession of the homestead premises.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit
10.1


 


Amendment
#3 to Term Note


 


Effective
Date: November 2, 2015


 


WHEREAS, Cachet
Financial Solutions Inc., a Minnesota corporation (“Company” or “Borrower”), and The Margaret De Jonge
Trust (“Lender”) (collectively “Parties”) entered into a Term Note for $613,808, effective December 14,
2012 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties desire to amend the payment terms as set forth in the Agreement to require Borrower to make three $30,000 payments
beginning November 15, 2015 and extend the Maturity Date of the Agreement to January 31, 2016.


 


NOW
THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


	1.
    	Capitalized
    terms not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.
	 	 
	2.
    	The
    second paragraph of the Agreement shall be amended and restated in its entirety asset forth below.


 


Borrower
will pay this loan according to below payment schedule with all outstanding principal plus all accrued, unpaid interest becoming
due on January 31, 2016 (the “Maturity Date”), subject to any prepayment.


 


Payment
Schedule


 


	 	-
    	$30,000
    due on November 15, 2015; 
	 	-
    	$30,000
    due on December 15, 2015; 
	 	-
    	$30,000
    due on January 15, 2016; 
	 	-
    	The
    remaining balance of accrued, unpaid interest and principal due on January 31, 2016


 


	3.
    	All
    terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, except to the extent specifically modified herein.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized representative as of
the Effective Date written above.


 


	Lender:  	 	Cachet Financial Solutions Inc.
	 	 	 	 
	By:
    	/s/
    Margaret De Jonge	 	By:
    	/s/
    Jeffrey C. Mack
	 	Margaret
    De Jonge	 	 	Jeffrey
    C. Mack
	 	Lender	 	 	Chief
    Executive Officer
EXIBIT 31.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

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

 

I, Stephen Hamilton, Chief Financial Officer of Reliant Nome Warranty Corporation., herby certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10QSB Reliant Nome Warranty Corporation;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue 

statement of 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 quarterly report;

 

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

 

4.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d -14) for the registrant and I have: 

(a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

(b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”) ; and

 

(c)  presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation date;

 

5.  I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and to the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any materials weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

(b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6.  I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 Date: Aug 19, 2007,

 

|   | /s/ Stephen Hamilton |
|--------|----------------------|

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

|   | By: Stephen Hamilton, |
|--------|-----------------------|

|   | Title: Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------|
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 12 (a)

              GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.
                    AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES
                                 
         Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Years ended December 31,
                                               ------------------------------------------------
                                                1995      1994      1993       1992      1991
(Dollar amounts in millions)                   -------   -------   -------    -------   -------
<S>                                            <C>       <C>       <C>        <C>       <C>

Earnings from continuing
 operations............................        $ 2,415   $ 2,085   $ 1,567    $ 1,331   $ 1,215
Provision for income taxes.............          1,105       864       642        404       317
Minority interest......................            140       139       134         40        33
Cumulative effect to January 1,
 1991, of accounting change for
 post retirement benefits other
 than pensions.........................             -         -        -           -          6
                                               -------   -------   -------    -------   -------
Earnings before income taxes,
 minority interest and accounting
 change................................         3,660      3,088     2,343      1,775     1,571
                                              -------    -------   -------    -------   -------
Fixed charges:
  Interest.............................         6,731      4,598     3,585      3,780     4,413
  One-third of rentals.................           175        156       138         92        36
                                              -------    -------   -------    -------   -------
Total fixed charges....................         6,906      4,754     3,723      3,872     4,449
                                              -------    -------   -------    -------   -------
Less interest capitalized, net of
 amortization..........................            21          9         4          6         7
                                              -------    -------   -------    -------   -------
Earnings before income taxes,
 minority interest and accounting
 change, plus fixed charges............       $10,545    $ 7,833   $ 6,062    $ 5,641   $ 6,013
                                              =======    =======   =======    =======   =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed
 charges...............................          1.53       1.65      1.63       1.46      1.35
                                              =======    =======   =======    =======   =======
</TABLE>
GPC Broad Summary and Slice Report

Millennium32 BASF Corporation
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2015-3984

 Directorate Identifier: 2015NM033AD

737-53A1261 --- 1/19/06

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
Exhibit 32.2   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)   In connection with the Report of HST Global, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ron Howell, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my 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.  Dated: April 4, 2014By:\s\ Ron HowellRon HowellInterim Chief Financial Officer
### MSHA Escalation Report

Notice: This form is a documentation of a call received on the MSHA 1

- 800 Line. The caller was

reporting either an emergency at a mine or a hazardous condition. The information documented was

provided by the caller and was forwarded to a district office for further resolution.

SR Number:

1

- 93022003

Reference Number:

N/A Contact Type:

Phone Mine Zip Code:

87416

City:

Fruitland County:

San Juan

State:

NM

Contact Information

Anonymous: Yes Caller ’s Primary Phone #: (111) 111

- 1111

Caller ’s Name: Anonymous Anonymous Caller ’s Secondary Phone #:

Caller ’s Email Address: n/a

Name of Mine:



### Navajo Mine Mining Company :

BHP Billiton

Mine Identificat ion Number : Unknown

Event Information

Ha s anyone died ? No How many died ? 0

Is anyone injured? No How many injured ? 0

Types of injuries: N/A

I s any one trapped ? No How many trapped ? 0

Is there a fire? No

Details provided by customer: The caller is reporting that a power plant adjacent to the mine is causing

extremely unhealthy resp iratory conditions. The power plant is the 4 Corners Power Plant. Units 4 and 5 of

the plant, have large bag houses that filter the fly ash. On the mine side of the fly ash building, when large

exhaust fans start up, the fans blow large amounts of fly ash. They are expelled through the veins from the

fans into the environment. This has been ongoing for the last 9 to 10 months. The dust is airborne and is

going onto the mine property. They have called the power plant to tell them of the hazard and for the mo st part they've been ignored. An MSHA inspector took pictures and reports. They were notified that as far as

jurisdiction goes, they are unable to take any action and they should notify the EPA.

Administrative Activities

Date / Time Event Occurred: N/A

Date / Time MSHA Notified: 03/15/2012 18:01:28

District Office: Coal District 09 Office

- Denver CO

Information Name: MSHA

- HAZARDOUS CONDITION COMPLAINT

- COAL MI NE

Date / Time District Office Notified: 03/15/2012

18:20:06 Comments: Spoke to Patricia Castelli and advised of

the complaint.
#### Nathaniel E. SHELTON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Robert B. PANNELL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Nos. 18793, 18794.

' United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Dec. 22, 1964.

Decided Feb. 11, 1965.

Petition, for Rehearing en Banc Denied March 26,1965.

Messrs. Samuel K. Abrams and Bernard M. Beerman (both appointed by this court), Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Mr. Martin R. Hoffmann, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Wilbur K. Miller, Senior Circuit Judge, and Fahy and Wright, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were convicted, on strong evidence, of housebreaking, defined in 22 D.C.Code § 1801, and were sentenced under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5010(c) (1958). The only contention for reversal which we need discuss is that at their preliminary hearing before the United States Commissioner appellants were without counsel or adequate advice with respect to counsel. It is the Commissioner’s duty and in some circumstances it may be essential to the validity of a subsequent conviction, to afford indigent accused who are without counsel the assistance of counsel at the preliminary hearing, if desired, and to advise of the availability of counsel.1 The absence of such assistance and adviee, however, does not necessarily invalidate a subsequent conviction *348at trial after indictment.2 3 In these cases no evidence in the nature of a confession or of any other character was adduced at the preliminary hearing and used at the trial. And we can find no basis in the record for an informed speculation that the trial itself was in any way prejudicially affected by the absence of counsel at the preliminary hearing.

Affirmed.

1

. Blue v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. -, 342 F.2d 894 (1964). The Commissioner did advise the appellants of their rights as specified in Rule 5(b) Fed.R. Crim.P. including their right to retain counsel.

2

. In Blue v. United States, *supra,*342 F. 2d 894-899 we held that an accused has other remedies to enforce his right to counsel at his preliminary hearing. See also Washington v. Clemmer, 119 U.S. App.D.G. -, 339 F.2d 725 (June 12, 1964).
DEBRA SANFORD,

Appellant,

v.

CUMULUS BROADCASTING, 

LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED 

LIABILITY COMPANY, STAR 

BROADCASTING, INC., GULF 

COAST BROADCASTING 

COMPANY, INC., QANTUM 

COMMUNICATIONS 

CORPORATION, RONALD 

HALE AND QANTUM OF FT. 

WALTON BEACH LICENSE 

COMPANY, LLC ,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5117

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 9, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

John T. Brown, Judge.

Lynn G. Waxman of Lynn G. Waxman, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, and Adam S. 

Doner of Gordon & Donor, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for Appellant.

T.A. Borowski, Jr. and Darryl Steve Traylor, Jr. of Borowski & Traylor, P.A., 

Pensacola, and Jack McKay of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, pro hac vice, 

for appellee Cumulus Broadcasting, LLC.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 676 

To authorize the production of records by the Permanent Subcommittee 

on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 6, 2020 

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself and Mr. SCHUMER) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize the production of records by the Permanent 

Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 

Whereas, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of 

the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs conducted an investigation into the art industry 

and United States policies that undermine sanctions; 

Whereas, the Subcommittee has received a request from the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security for access to 

records of the Subcommittee’s investigation; 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 676 ATS 

from such control or possession but by permission of the 

Senate; 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate is needed for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking Minority 

2 Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investiga3 tions of the Committee on Homeland Security and Govern4 mental Affairs, acting jointly, are authorized to provide 

5 to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other 

6 regulatory agencies, law enforcement officials, and entities 

7 or individuals duly authorized by federal or state govern8 ments, records of the Subcommittee’s investigation into 

9 the art industry and United States policies that undermine 

10 sanctions. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

Benjamin Yocum & Heather, Ltd, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. Case No. 1:17cv850 

Black Wolf Consulting, Inc., et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Defendants. 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the 

Magistrate Judge on May 30, 2018 (Doc. 18). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), 

including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file 

objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. 

Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Report 

and Recommendation have been filed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) of 

the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by 

the Magistrate Judge, Defendant Benefit Plan Administrator’s Alternative Motion to 

Dismiss (Doc. 11) is denied as moot and can be refiled once the stay is lifted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett 

United States District Judge
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50531 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ISMAEL VEGA-ALVARADO, also known as Jose Luis Medina-Perez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-01-CR-2208-ALL-DB

-------------------- February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ismael Vega-Alvarado pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He appeals the district court’s interpretation of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) at his sentencing. Vega-Alvarado argues for the first time on appeal that his prior felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance did not merit the eight-level adjustment provided in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) for an aggravated felony. He argues that he should haveNo. 02-50531 -2- received only the four-level adjustment provided inU.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D) for “any other felony.” VegaAlvarado’s arguments regarding the definitions of “drug trafficking offense” and “aggravated felony” are foreclosed by United States v. Caicedo-Cuero , 312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir.2002). The district court did not err in assessing an eightlevel adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), to Vega-Alvarado’s sentencing guideline calculation. Vega-Alvarado also argues for the first time on appeal that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional because it treats a prior conviction for an aggravated felony as a mere sentencing factor and not an element of the offense. Vega-Alvarado concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United
States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; see also United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, this argument lacks merit.
AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7572

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BOBBY CARROLL COOK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District

Judge. (CR-94-47, CA-97-2-3)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 30, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Carroll Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow,

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West 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.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Cook, Nos. CR-94-47; CA-97-2-3 (N.D.W. Va.

Aug. 19, 1997). We note that viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could find

beyond a reasonable doubt that Cook carried the firearm at issue.

See Muscarello v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 66 U.S.L.W. 4459

(U.S. June 8, 1998); United States v. Hudgins, 120 F.3d 483, 487-88

(4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 653-54

(4th Cir. 1997). 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.

DISMISSED