alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nash and Wife *vs.*Clarke.

[Mr. Hovd for plaintiffs: no appearance for defendant.)

Appeal *from a J.*J?.

From the Circuit Court for Mason County.

*April*13.

Construction of a will.

A testator gives his daughter a legacy charged upon certain real estate devised to his wife, the executrix: she is liable as devisee, not as executrix, and a warrayt(or suit at law) will not lie to enforce the payment of the legacy; the remedy is in Equity.

.Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

John Mitchell, by his last will, published and admitted to record in 1830, after devising his whole estate to his surviving wife during her life, made (among others not now material,) the following bequests:—“It is further “ my will that, after the death of my beloved wife, the « houses I own on second street shall be rented out for “ four years—one half the rent to be given to my daugh- “ ter Elizabeth, and the other half to be divided between “ my daughters Mary and Jane—the half that I give to “ my daughter Jane, to be given to her *at the discretion of*“ *my executors.*I *further*will, that my daughter Jane “ shall have *six dollars a year*out of the rent of said hou- « ses—that is to say, her fourth part of said rent.” And it appears, from the will, *that those houses were rented out at the time of the testator's*death.

The widow was alone qualified as executrix, and afterwards intermarried with John Nash.

In 1835, Jane *Clarke*proceeded by warrant against the executrix and her husband, for rent claimed under the will, as the legacy to Jane Mitchell; and having obtained a judgment for thirty dollars, the Circuit Court, on an appeal, rendered a judgment in her favor for twenty-four dollars—to reverse which this writ of error is prosecuted.

Although the intention of the testator respecting his daughter Jane, is not perfectly clear, yet a proper and consistent interpretation of the foregoing extracts authorizes the deduction, that he intended that, in addition to her *contingent*interest in the rent for four years *succeeding the death of his*wife, she should have a *certain*interest, to the extent of six dollars per annum, in the an.*70nual profits of the designated houses *from the time of his’ death*to that of his wife. Any other construction would render the last clause in the will useless, inoperative, and inconsistent.

But, as the title to the houses was devised to his wife, the bequest to Jane, of six dollars a year, should be deemed a charge on the estate of the wife, which can be enforced against her as devisee only, and not in a court of law, but in a Court of Equity. *¿h executrix,*she is not liable for the legacy charged on the land devised to her in her own right, and for her own use and in trust for Jane.

Moreover, there is no proof, that Jane *Clarke,*the plaintiff in the warrant, and Jane Mitchell, the legatee, are one and the same person.

Wherefore the judgment must be reversed and the-cause remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6826 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.6826

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the visitor and education center at Fort McHenry National 
    Monument and Historic Shrine as the Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and 
                            Education Center.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
    (a) Designation.--The visitor and education center at Fort McHenry 
National Monument and Historic Shrine, currently located at 2400 E Fort 
Ave, Baltimore, MD 21230, is designated as the ``Paul S. Sarbanes 
Visitor and Education Center''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other document of the United States to the visitor center 
designated by subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and Education Center.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6843 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6843

 To expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area to 
                  include Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 15, 2023

  Mr. Scalise (for himself, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Ms. Letlow, Mr. 
   Higgins of Louisiana, and Mr. Carter of Louisiana) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area to 
                  include Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ATCHAFALAYA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA EXPANSION.

    Section 213 of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Act (subtitle 
B of title II of Public Law 109-338) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``and Ascension Parish'' 
        and inserting ``Ascension, and Lafourche Parish''; and
            (2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``14'' and inserting 
        ``15''.
                                 <all>
```
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

The undersigned, Kenneth A. Shewer, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Futures Strategic Trust for the period July 1, 2007 to September 30, 2007, 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer        
|Kenneth A. Shewer            
|Co-Chief Executive Officer   
|(Principal Executive Officer)
|                             
|Date: November 13, 2007
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-60362 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 12, 2017

John Arthur Meynardie, Esq., Gaines H. Cleveland, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Robert Glenn Harenski, Biloxi, MS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Oscar Martinez pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, and the district court sentenced him to 240 months of *785imprisonment. He contends that the district court erred when it increased his offense level by two levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) and an additional two levels pursuant to § 2Dl.l(b)(5). He further argues that the district court failed to properly weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The Government responds by moving to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, for summary affirmance based upon the appeal waiver in Martinez’s plea agreement.

This court reviews the validity of an appeal waiver *de novo. See United States v. Baymon,*312 F.3d 725, 727 (5th Cir. 2002). We rely solely on the record before us. *Cf. United States v. Corbett,*742 F.2d 173, 177 (5th Cir. 1984). The record establishes that Martinez knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the appeal waiver, and the record rebuts his claims that the Government breached the agreement. Thus, the appeal waiver is enforceable. *See United States v. Portillo,*18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). Further, Martinez’s challenge to his sentence does not fall within the only exception stated in the appeal waiver, which concerns ineffective assistance of counsel. *See United States v. Bond,*414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005).

The Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED. Its alternative request for summary affirmance is DENIED as moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Herman Leichten, Resp’t, *v.*Benjamin W. Davis, App’lt.

Appeal from fifth district court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule** **13a-14(a) under the**

**Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended**

I, Oakleigh Thorne, certify that: 

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of eCollege.com; 

 

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

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2003 in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

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

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

 

Date: June 20, 2005 

| /s/ Oakleigh Thorne    

Oakleigh ThorneChief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer) |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Ana Guadalupe DIAZ-POSADA Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 16-3895

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 22, 2017

Filed: August 30, 2017

Daniel Scott Reeker, Kendall Law Office, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner

Kate Deboer Balaban, Carl H. McIntyre, Jason Wisecup, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ana Guadalupe Diaz-Posada petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ), which denied her asylum and withholding of removal.1 To qualify for asylum, Diaz had to establish that she was unable or unwilling to return to El Salvador due to persecution, or a well-founded fear of persecution, based on her membership in the particular social group she identified. See Ngengwe v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1029, 1032 (8th Cir. 2008). Upon careful consideration, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Diaz-Posada failed to establish (1) past persecution, because she did not show that she suffered persecution, at the hands of an individual the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to control, see id. (standard of review); Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2005) (persecution requires that harm be inflicted by country’s government or by individuals the government is unable or unwilling to control); or (2) a well-founded fear of future persecution, because her fear that she would be harmed upon return was not objectively reasonable, see Agha v. Holder, 743 F.3d 609, 614 (8th Cir. 2014) (well-founded fear of future persecution must be subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable). Because Diaz-Posada did not satisfy the lower burden of proof required for asylum, her withholding-of-removal claim necessarily fails. See Agha, 743 F.3d at 615.

The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The IJ’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture is not before this panel.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.8

                                    ADDENDUM
                                       TO
                    INFORMATION ARCHITECTS CORPORATION F/K/A
                          ALYDAAR SOFTWARE CORPORATION
                            OMNIBUS STOCK OPTION PLAN

         THIS ADDENDUM is effective as of the 1st day of February, 2002 to the
INFORMATION ARCHITECTS CORPORATION F/K/A ALYDAAR SOFTWARE CORPORATION OMNIBUS
STOCK OPTION PLAN ("Plan") pursuant to the approval by the shareholders of
Information Architects Corporation, as recorded in the minutes of the provisions
of the Addendum are hereby made a part of the Plan. Should a conflict exist
among the provisions of the Plan, the Exhibits thereto and this Addendum, the
provision of this addendum shall control. Any terms in capital letters not
defined in this Addendum shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan.

     1.   Article V, Section 5.1 (General) is amended so that the number of
          Shares of common stock for which Awards may be granted under the Plan
          is increased from 800,000 to 4,000,000 shares after giving effect to
          the reverse stock split.



By: /s/ Robert F. Gruder
    ------------------------------------------
    Robert F. Gruder, Chief Executive Officer,
    President and Chairman
Exhibit 99.1

          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 quarterly report of Capital Preferred Yield Fund-IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003,
as filed with the Security and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John F. Olmstead, President and Director of CAI Equipment Leasing
V Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Partnership.


By:      /s/ John F. Olmstead                              Dated:  May 14, 2003
         --------------------
         John F. Olmstead
Title:   President and Director

                                       18
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

I, Richard A. Petrocelli, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Saratoga Investment Corp.;

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

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

4.     The
company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:



5.     The
company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company's
auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
June 28, 2011

/s/ Richard A. Petrocelli Name: Richard A. Petrocelli
Chief Financial Officer, Chief Compliance Officer and Secretary


---



QuickLinks
#### City of Little Falls, Respondent, *v.*State of New York, Appellant. City of Little Falls, Respondent, *v.*State of New York, Appellant.

Claim No. 25,847. Claim No. 25,848.

Argued October 8, 1943;

decided December 8, 1943.

*756
      *Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Henry S. Manley*and *Orrin G. Judd*of counsel), for appellant.

*James A. McTiernan*for respondent.

Judgments affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Lottghran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Mary McAllen, Respondent, against James Marshall et al., Constituting the Retirement Board of the Board of Education Retirement System of the City of New York, Appellants.

Argued December 1, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*7961 *Ignatius M. Wilkinson, Corporation Counsel (Nicholas Bucci, James H. Prothero*and *Edna Classman*of counsel), for appellants.

*David A. Savage*and *John F. O’Shea*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Lotjghran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Thacher, J.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Andres Orlando MAJANO-CHICA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51045 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 18, 2017

Joseph H, Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kristin Michelle Kimmelman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Andres Orlando Majano-Chica pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to 41 months of imprisonment. On appeal he claims his sentence is substantively unrea*357sonable. According to Majano-Chica, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis and results in the double-counting of a criminal record. As well, Majano-Chica maintains that his sentence is greater than necessary to fulfill the statutory sentencing goals for his reentry offense and does not account for the fact that he reentered the country to escape danger and rejoin his wife.

We have rejected Majano-Chica’s theories that § 2L1.2’s lack of empirical foundation necessarily renders its application unreasonable, *see Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d at 366-67, that the Sentencing Guidelines “double count” prior convictions, *see United States v. Duarte,*569 F.3d 528, 529-30 (5th Cir. 2009), and that the Guidelines overstate the seriousness of illegal reentry, *see United States v. Juarez-Duarte,*513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008).

Majano-Chica’s argument that within-guidelines sentences calculated under § 2L1.2 should not be presumed reasonable on appeal because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis is foreclosed, as he concedes. *See Duarte,*569 F.3d at 530-31; *United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). Majano-Chica can rebut the presumption of reasonableness only by showing that the sentence fails to account for a factor that should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the factors. *See United States v. Tuma,*738 F.3d 681, 695 (5th Cir. 2013).

The district court heard the parties’ positions, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and concluded that the sentence was appropriate. Majano-Chica has not shown that his sentence failed to account for his fear of returning to El Salvavdor and sympathetic motive for reentry or that the court made a clear error judgment in weighing the factors. Because Majano-Chi-ca has not rebutted the appellate presumption that his within-guidelines sentence was reasonable or demonstrated that his sentence is the result of an abuse of discretion, *see Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), the judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.