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

4625

231 S. W. 2d 109

Opinion delivered June 26, 1950.

*527*ReÁnberger*& *Eilbott*and *Lawrence E. Dawson,*for appellant.

*Ike Murry,*Attorney General, and *Jeff Duty,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice.

Appellant was convicted and fined for permitting Ms livestock to run at large in violation of the 1948 Initiated Act No. 1 of Jefferson County; and this appeal ensued.

The case Avas tried on facts stipulated as follows:

> “. . . that on May 1, 1949, Lonzo McGarity, a resident of Jefferson County, permitted his hogs, 14 in number, to run at large in Jefferson County, Arkansas, after having first been notified by Douglas Riley to put up and confine said hogs,-and after such notice defendant refused to do so.

> “It is further understood and agreed that there is no county-Avide stock law in Pulaski County.”

The said Initiated Act No. 1 — adopted by the voters of Jefferson County at the 1948 General Election1 — reads in part:

> “That, from the effective date of this act, it shall be unlawful for any livestock to run at large in Jefferson County, and whenever any livestock are (is) running at large, it shall be the duty of the owner thereof, within twenty-four hours after verbal or written notice of such fact, to take up such livestock and confine them; and in case of such owner’s failure or refusal to do so, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined a sum of not less than $10 nor more than $50 for each offense, and each day the said livestock shall run at large after such notice shall constitute a separate offense.”

*528Appellant relies on the Florida case of *Thomas*v. *Mills,*107 Fla. 385, 144 So. 882, as authority for reversal. The Flo'rida law required a County to fence its boundaries before putting a County stock law into effect. We have no such requirement in Arkansas; so the Florida case is not ruling. The stipulated fact — that Pulaski County (adjoining Jefferson County), has no law prohibiting cattle from running at large — is of no benefit to the appellant, because he is a resident of Jefferson County. See *Linehart*v. *Bruton,*207 Ark. 536, 181 S. W. 2d 468. Furthermore, one residing outside the affected territory is guilty of law violation if he knowingly allows his cattle to cross the boundary into a prohibited territory in violation of a stock restraint law. See *DeQueen*v. *Fenton,*100 Ark. 504, 140 S. W. 716.

In view of the stipulated facts in this case, and our holdings in the case of *Smith*v. *Plant,*179 Ark. 1024, 19 S. W. 2d 1022, and *Turnage v. Gibson,*211 Ark. 268, 200 S. W. 2d 92, this case must be affirmed, since we are unable to perceive any reason why these cases are not ruling in the case at bar.

Affirmed.

1

 Authority for such a County law as this is found in Initiative and Referendum Amendment No. 7 to our Constitution. See, also, *Dozier*v. *Ragsdale,*186 Ark. 654, 55 S. W. 2d 779, and *Tindall*v. *Searan,*192 Ark. 173, 90 S. W. 2d 476.
#### Taylor v Taylor,

No. 90978;

Court of Appeals No. 118151. Reconsideration denied October 28,1991.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Yearly Report On Form 10-KSB of ABSS Corp
for the Year Ended December 31, 2003, I, Alan Lew, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of ABSS, Corp. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
          2003, 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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the
          year ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ABSS,
          Corp.

Dated:  April 14, 2004


ABSS, CORP.


By: /s/ Alan Lew
---------------------------
Alan Lew
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
Case: 3:18-cr-00075-WHR Doc #: 49 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 196
Case: 3:18-cr-00075-WHR Doc #: 49 Filed: 03/15/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 197
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 1 of 12

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 2 of 12

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 3 of 12

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 4 of 12

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 5 of 12

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 6 of 12

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 7 of 12

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 8 of 12

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 9 of 12

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 10 of 12

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 11 of 12

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 12 of 12
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Form 10-K of BrandPartners Group, Inc.
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), James F.
Brooks, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Suzanne Verrill, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

1.    to my knowledge, 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.


/s/  James F. Brooks
James F. Brooks
Chief Executive Officer
March 25, 2005


/s/ Suzanne M. Verrill
Suzanne M. Verrill
Chief Financial Officer
March 25, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to BrandPartners Group, Inc. and will
be retained by BrandPartners and will be furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### John Allen THORNTON *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5310

422 S. W. 2d 852

Opinion delivered January 8, 1968

[Rehearing denied February 12, 1968]

*830
      *Terral, Rawlings, Matthews*& *Purtle,*for appellant.

*Joe Purcell,*Attorney General; *Don Langston,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

CoNley Byrd, Justice,

Upon a plea of guilty, appellant John Allen Thornton was sentenced to three years in the penitentiary for burglary and three years in the penitentiary for grand larceny, both sentences to run concurrently. In this appeal he relies upon the following points:

I

That the court erred in sentencing the appellant to more than the minimum sentence upon the plea of guilty.

II

That his sentence should have been suspended because the alleged co-defendant entered a guilty plea and received a suspended sentence.

III

That the appellant did not understand he was entering a guilty plea nor the consequence thereof.

The record shows that appellant, together with Charles Clifford Durden, was charged with the crimes of burglary and grand larceny in that on December 17, 1966, he feloniously entered the building of Standard Furniture Company and carried away therefrom property in the aggregate value of more than $35. By another information he was charged with the crimes of burglary and grand larceny in that on January 14, 1967, he fel-oniously entered the building of the Brandon Furniture Company and carried away therefrom property in the aggregate value of more than $35. On April 3 he appeared in court with his attorney and pleaded not guilty. On July 19 he appeared in court with the same attorney, changed his plea to guilty and received the two concurrent three-year sentences.

*831Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1003 (Repl. 1964) sets the penalty for burglary at not less than 2 nor more than 21 years. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-3907 (Repl. 1964.) sets the penalty for grand larceny at not less than 1 nor more than 21 years. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1222 (Repl. 1964) provides that a court may permit withdrawal of a guilty plea at any time before judgment. Ark. Stat. Ann. § § 43-2324 (Repl. 1964), -2326 and -2331 (Supp. 1967) provide for suspended sentences. It is within the discretion of the trial court to fix sentences, within the limits prescribed by law, to suspend sentences and to permit withdrawal of a guilty plea at any time before judgment. There is nothing in the record to show any abuse of this discretion by the trial court.

Actually the record does not show that the co-defendant, Charles Clifford Durden, received a sentence different from that given appellant, but even if it did it would still be a matter within the discretion of the trial court to give different sentences to different persons charged with the same offense.

Nor is appellant’s third point supported by the record. Until the contrary is shown? we will assume that a person who appears in court with an attorney of his choice has ample opportunity to understand when he has entered a plea of guilty and the consequences thereof.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.3

                           CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT
                       PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Bruce Long, certify that:

      I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of National Lampoon, Inc. (the "Report")

      Based on my knowledge, the 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.

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

The Company's other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company 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 Company, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which the periodic report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company'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 annual report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this Report any change in the Company's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal
quarter (the Company's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Company's internal control over financial reporting; and

The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's
auditors and to the audit committee of the board of directors (or persons
fulfilling the equivalent function):

      (i) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
      control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
      affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report
      financial information; and

      (ii) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control
      over financial reporting.


Dated: November 14, 2006                By: /s/ Bruce K. Long
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Bruce K. Long
                                            President
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18-cr-109-1

v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

ANDREY SHUKLIN,

Defendant.

CRIMINAL MINUTES: CHANGE OF PLEA ON INDICTMENT

Defendant appeared by video with counsel Martin Pinales and Stephanie Kessler

Interpreter Inna Owens sworn

Defendant advised of right to appear in person, but consented to appear by video

Defendant arraigned and specifically advised of rights

Plea Agreement summarized by AUSA Matthew Singer

Statement of Facts read by AUSA Matthew Singer

Defendant pled GUILTY to Count 1

Plea accepted by the Court

Referred to Probation Department for Presentence Report

Defendant remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal

Judge: Douglas R. Cole

Courtroom Deputy: Scott Lang

Court Reporter: Sue Lopreato-Official

Date: January 25, 2021

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 175 Filed: 01/25/21 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 892
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 4887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01920]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than March 2, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Karen Smith, Director, 
Applications) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. CBTX, Inc., Beaumont, Texas; to merge with Allegiance 
Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Allegiance Bank, both 
of Houston, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 26, 
2022.
Margaret McCloskey Shanks,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-01920 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### Dake *v.*Woodcock.

Opinion delivered March 24, 1930.

*411
      *.0. H. Sumpter,*for appellant.

*G. T. Cotham,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating tbe facts). Appellant insists that the court erred in decreeing a foreclosure upon tbe mortgage and tbe rendition of tbe decree against tbe executor, tbe claim against the estate of Emily Dake not having been probated and being barred by tbe statute of nonclaim. Tbe suit was properly brought for foreclosure of tbe lien against tbe property mortgaged or conveyed by tbe deed of trust without probation of a claim against tbe estate of one of tbe makers, deceased, of the secured note. No judgment was sought against the *412estate of the decedent, but only foreclosure of the lien of the mortgage executed by the decedent as security therefor. *Hall*v. *Denckle,*28 Ark. 506; *Arkmo Lumber Co.*v. *Cantrell,*159 Ark. 456, 252 S. W. 901.

There is no contention that the debt secured by the mortgage ivas barred by the statute of limitations, § 7408, C. & M. Digest. *Mueller*v. *Light,*92 Ark. 522, 123 S. W. 646, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1013.

The executor of the estate of deceased, maker of the note, was a necessary party to the suit for the determination of the amount due on the note for payment of which the lien was to be foreclosed. Under the allegations of the complaint, the money borrowed by Charles Dake, $533, was for payment of taxes, interest, etc., the payment of which was also secured under the terms of the mortgage, and, Charles Dake having succeeded to the ownership of the property mortgaged under the provisions of the will of his wife, and expressly agreed that the payment of the notes was secured by the terms and conditions of the original deed of trust, there was no error in foreclosing the lien of the mortgage for its payment.

We find no error in the record, and the decree is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, John J. Remaley, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Neffs Bancorp, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, the annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;     (b) intentionally omitted;     (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annualreport based upon such evaluation; and     (d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
47

 
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and     (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:      March 26, 2007 By:  /s/John J. Remaley   President & CEO      
48
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

CHRISTOPHER FELTY,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:18-cv-179
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
Defendant.

ORDER: (1) APPROVING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION FOR AN AWARD
OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (“EAJA”)
(@OC. 20); AND (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF $4,331.25 IN EAJA FEES

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the Court on the parties’ joint
stipulation in which they agree that Plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees under the Equal
Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $4,331.25. Doc. 20. Based
upon the parties’ stipulation in which they present no dispute that all requirements are met for the
reasonable award of EAJA fees, the Court: (1) APPROVES the parties’ joint stipulation (doc. 20);
and (2) GRANTS Plaintiff EAJA fees in the amount of $4,331.25. As no further matters remain
pending for review, this case remains TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: €:°20-(9 (Shoe m4 ,Gr

Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, John Rossi, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Garb Oil & Power Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Garb Oil & Power Corporation.








Date: March 8, 2012
By: /s/John RossiJohn Rossi, President and CEO,Financial and Accounting Officer








A signed original of the written statements above required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Garb Oil & Power Corporation and will be retained by Garb Oil & Power Corporation and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


The forgoing certifications are being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, and they shall not be considered filed as part of such report .
Case: 2:18-cv-00492-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 05/17/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 3
Case: 2:18-cv-00492-GCS-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 05/17/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 4