alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MAILO, Plaintiff v. FANENE, Defendant

No. 3-1907

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division

Date unknown

*192W. G. BRIGGS, *Senior Member of Court;*J. L. DWYER, *Associate Member;*and MAUGA, *Associate Member*

DECISION

The case at bar has arisen out of a quarrel between Mailo, the plaintiff, and Fanene Pi, the defendant, which occurred about five years ago — shortly after the death of Fanene Aitonu, the immediate predecessor of the present Fanene. Prior to the accession of the present Fanene to that name, the families of Mailo and Fanene dwelt in harmony, and it is admitted that Mailo occupied the superior station and Fanene the inferior station.

Fanene acknowledged that the name Fanene is a “nofofanau” of the name Mailo. The Court has found it impossible to arrive at an accurate definition of the Samoan word “nofofanau” but it unquestionably indicates a certain degree of dependence.

According to the testimony produced by the plaintiff, the ancestors of the defendant were given the use of the land in controversy by the ancestors of plaintiff. The tenure held by the defendant’s ancestors was of that quasifeudal nature, which, in the early days was determined at the pleasure of the ruling chief.

The Court is satisfied that at the inception, the ancestors of Fanene secured this land from Mailo as a place to live, on or to cultivate the fruits of the earth, and as time went *193on, the family of Mailo and that of Fanene being on friendly terms, no objection was raised by Mailo to the continued use and occupation of this land by Fanene as long as the relations between the two families were harmonious. After the quarrel between the present Fanene and Mailo, the present Fanene attempted to assert his supposed rights in this land by surveying a portion of same and executing a deed to one Siomia.

The Court therefore, holds, that the Mailo family, under the control of the name “Mailo” are the owners of the land in dispute. Fanene, as a member of the Mailo division or family, has been appointed to the use of this land, and it cannot be disposed of by Mailo without the consent of Fanene, nor can Fanene dispose of it without the acquiescense of Mailo. In case it ever transpires that Fanene has abandoned this land, the land will revert to Mailo, who as trustee for the family, may apportion it out to other members of his family. Fanene’s rights to this land have accrued to him because of the long period of use and occupation of this land by the family of Fanene.

The costs will be assessed by the Clerk of the Court— one half to be paid by Fanene and one half by Mailo.
EXHIBIT 32.3



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, David K. Spohr, Vice President and Director of Fund Administration of the Managing Owner, Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing
Owner), of Futures Strategic Trust (the Trust), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Trusts Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David K. Spohr                                                                 
|David K. Spohr Vice President and Director of Fund Administration November 14, 2005
#### Cormick McNulty, Appellant, *v.*Dora E. Brown, impleaded, etc., Respondent.

(Argued April 1, 1872;

decided April 23, 1872.)

*Samuel Hcmd*for the appellant.

*John A. Foley*for the respondent.

Agree to affirm. No opinion. Peokham, J., dissenting.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04069]


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

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 28, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Sebastian Astrada, 
Director, Applications) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 
94105-1579:
    1. Seattle Bancshares, Inc., Seattle, Washington; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring Seattle Bank, Seattle, Washington.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 22, 
2022.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-04069 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
---

Exhibit 10.7

Management agreement between Chiropractic USA and Southern Healthcare

On June 26th, 2002 the Registrant publicly disseminated a
  press release announcing that its wholly owned subsidiary, Chiropractic USA,
  Inc., assigned its right to acquire a chain of Chiropractic clinics in Louisiana
  (the "Louisiana Clinics") to Southern Health Care, Inc., a newly formed Colorado
  holding company with no other assets, in exchange for a significant management
  agreement (the "Management Agreement") and franchise agreements. This assignment
  was undertaken at the request of the financial institution funding the acquisition
  to accommodate their desired organizational structure for the transaction. Southern
  Health Care, Inc., in exchange for the rights to purchase the Louisiana Clinics
  has agreed to the Management Agreement with Chiropractic USA, Inc. whereby all
  revenues and expenses from the operations of the Louisiana Clinics will flow
  through to Chiropractic USA, Inc. Chiropractic USA, Inc. will in turn provide
  all operational oversight, management, marketing and administration for the
  Louisiana Clinics. Southern Health Care, Inc. has waived its conditions precedent
  regarding the acquisition, and is proceeding to close on the purchase expeditiously.
  When the purchase concludes, the Management Agreement is due to commence. Furthermore,
  the Louisiana Clinics will become the first franchised outlets for Chiropractic
  USA, Inc., which will then commence its franchising program for Chiropractic
  Clinics.

Southern Health Care, Inc. was incorporated for the specific
  purpose of accommodating the request of the financial institution providing
  the required funding. Southern Health Care, Inc. is wholly owned by Michael
  Gelmon and Cory Gelmon individually (the Gelmon's are CEO and President of Chiropractic
  USA, Inc. and the Registrant respectively). Neither Michael nor Cory Gelmon
  will be remunerated as a consequence of their ownership of Southern Health Care,
  Inc.

The Registrant has consulted extensively with its auditors
  regarding this transaction. It is anticipated that the Management Agreement
  under which Chiropractic USA, Inc. will operate the Louisiana Clinics for Southern
  Health Care, Inc. will result in consolidating the operations of Southern Health
  Care, Inc. into the financial statements of Chiropractic USA, Inc. and as such
  will be included in the consolidated financial statements of the Registrant,
  as provided by Emerging Issues Task Force Consensus 97-2 relating to Physician
  Practice Management entities.

---
#### Victor Costellos PENNY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph MCFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6381

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

Victor Costellos Penny, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Sherrie Ann Butterbaugh, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, for Appel-lee.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Victor Costellos Penny seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). *250When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Penny has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jonathan K. Butt, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[771 NYS2d 209]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 17, 2002, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was not totally unemployed during the period when he was receiving unemployment insurance benefits. During the benefit period, claimant engaged in the creation of mixed media sculptures. He obtained a tax identification number, enabling him to deduct his sculpting-related expenses on his personal income tax returns. Claimant’s artistic endeavors also included promoting his work by sending slides of it to art galleries and exhibiting his sculptures at an art show where all of them were for sale. Although claimant testified that these activities were neither sustained nor profitable, they were nonetheless sufficient to constitute employment within the meaning of the Labor Law *(see Matter of Eisenstadt [Commissioner of Labor],*300 AD2d 729, 730 [2002]). In addition, claimant stood to gain financially from his artwork by taking the related expenses as tax deduc*642tions *(see Matter of Helm [Commissioner of Labor],*304 AD2d 943, 943 [2003]; *Matter of Gorman [Commissioner of Labor],*288 AD2d 597, 598 [2001]).

Substantial evidence further supports the Board’s ruling that claimant knowingly failed to report his employment-related activities, giving rise to the assessment of a recoverable overpayment *(see Matter of Bundschuh [Commissioner of Labor],*288 AD2d 745, 746 [2001]). Claimant received the unemployment insurance information handbook which sets forth the requirement of reporting any work-related activity, no matter how minimal or uncompensated; hence, he cannot persuasively argue that he was ignorant of the rules relating to reportable work *(see Matter of Karpien [Commissioner of Labor],*297 AD2d 855, 855-856 [2002]). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### William Scott DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF CARY NORTH CAROLINA; Harold Weinbrecht, Mayor; State of North Carolina; Wake County Public School System; Patti Head; North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services; Albert Singer, Wake County North Carolina County Attorney; Triangle Family Services; Miles Wright, Interim CEO, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1511

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 24, 2017

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying several post-judgment motions in a closed civil action. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. *Davis v. Town of Cary, N.C.,*No. 5:08-cv-00176-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 10, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.02

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with this quarterly report of ML JWH Strategic Allocation Fund
L.P. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael L. Pungello,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. This quarterly report containing the financial statements 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ML JWH
Strategic Allocation Fund L.P.


Date: November 15, 2004

By /s/ MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO
   -----------------------
Michael L. Pungello
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

                                       20
#### Benigno GARCIA-CALLEJAS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70265

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed October 3, 2017

Benigno Garda-Callejas, Blythe, CA, pro se.

Matt Crapo, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Benigno Garda-Callejas, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the social group Garda-Callejas presents for the first time in his opening brief. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no subject-matter jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in. administrative proceedings below).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal because Garda-Callejas failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears from gangs and a protected ground. *See Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by *502theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Garcia-Callejas failed to establish that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if returned to Honduras. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073.

Finally, we reject Garcia-Callejas’s due process contention regarding IJ bias because he did not show error. *See Lata v. I.N.S.,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 31.01**

**RULE13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Benjamin Weston,certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-Q of ML JWH Strategic Allocation Fund L.P.;

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

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

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure 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 oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect 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 who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: November 14, 2006                |                 |   |   |
|----------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|--------|
|                                   |                 |   |   |   |
| By                                     | /s/ BENJAMIN  WESTON |   |   |   |
| Benjamin Weston                        |                 |
| Chief Executive  Officer and President |                 |
| (Principal  Executive Officer)         |                 |

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                          74,599
<SECURITIES>                                     8,295
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,670
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,775
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,836
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,206
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,792
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,278
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,409
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (1,183)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,525)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,525)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,059
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,466)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)


</TABLE>