alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### I. C. Roe, *Receiver, etc. v.*Cora M. Pack

(No. 7662)

Submitted April 17, 1934.

Decided May 29, 1934.

*Jean F. Smith*and *John J. Hamrick,*for plaintiff ip error.

*Vinson, Thompson, Meek*& *Scherr,*for defendant ini error.

Litz, Judge :

This is an action by notice of motion for judgment, in which the evidence was submitted to the court in lieu of a jury and judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, I. E. Roe, receiver of the Coal Exchange Bank, against defendant Cora M. Pack, for $1,381.00.

April 14, 1927, American Bank & Trust Company, of Huntington, was, for insolvency, closed by the state commissioner of banking. Some months later, the Coal Exchange Bank was organized, and, with the consent and approval of the commissioner of banking, it acquired the assets and assumed the liabilities of the American Bank & Trust Company. The new bank commenced business December 17, 1927, and was closed by the commissioner of banking October 25, 1928, because of its inability to *148discharge the liabilities of the American' Bank & Trust Company which were largely in excess of the assets. Defendant, who was a depositor of the old bank, became a stockholder of the new at the time of its organization. The action was brought to recover an assessment by the commissioner of banking against defendant, as a stockholder of the Coal Exchange Bank, under the liability imposed upon stockholders of insolvent banks by section 6, Article XI of the Constitution and section 32, article 8, chapter 31, Code 1931. Upon the overruling of a demurrer to the notice, plaintiff filed a plea of the general issue and several special pleas charging that representatives of the Coal Exchange Bank had induced her to subscribe to the stock by means of fraudulent representations concerning its value. After demurrer to the special pleas had been sustained, plaintiff adduced evidence, under the general issue, tending to establish the charges therein contained.

The defendant assigns as grounds of error (1) the overruling of the demurrer to the notice; (2) sustaining the demurrer to the special pleas; (3) the rendering of judgment in favor of plaintiff.

As the constitutional and statutory liability against the stockholders of an insolvent bank may be enforced by notice of motion for judgment *(Lawhead*v. *Garlow,*114 W. Va. 175, 171 S. E. 250), and the notice contains the necessary averments, the demurrer was properly overruled.

The demurrer to the special pleas was rightly sustained because the facts therein charged did not constitute a defense. “One induced to purchase (bank) stock as the result of fraud must look to the wrongdoer for redress, and is estopped as against creditors to deny that he is a shareholder, if at the time the rights of creditors accrued he occupied and was accorded the rights of a share-’ holder.” Michie on Banks & Banking, p. 99.

The necessary facts to establish prima facie liability against defendant having been sufficiently alleged and proved, and no defense being offered other than that *149charged in the special pleas, plaintiff was entitled to judgment.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
----

            COUNCIL DECISION         

of 22 January 2007         

appointing a Luxembourg member and a Luxembourg alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

(2007/39/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Luxembourg Government,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, namely until 25 January 2010:

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 22 January 2007.

For the Council

The President

F.-W. STEINMEIER            

----

(1)OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

----
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 0 9

- 4 0 7 8 7 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A
,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v

.

S A M U E L U C L E S
,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r S o u t h e r n t h e D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o

. 5 : 0 8

- C R

- 1 9 4 0

- 1

B e f o r e J O L L Y
, W I E N E R
, a n d E L R O D
, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

. P E R C U R I A M : *

T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t S a m u e l U c l e s h a s

m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v

. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. U c l e s h a s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e

. W i t h r e s p e c t t o
U c l e s ’ s c l a i m s o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l
, s u c h c l a i m s g e n e r a l l y “ c a n n o t

b e r e s o l v e d o n d i r e c t a p p e a l w h e n [ t h e y h a v e ] n o t b e e n r a i s e d b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t s i n c e n o o p p o r t u n i t y e x i s t e d t o d e v e l o p t h e r e c o r d o n t h e m e r i t s o f t h e

a l l e g a t i o n s

. ” U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. C a n t w e l l
, 4 7 0 F

. 3 d 1 0 8 7 , 1 0 9 1 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 6 ) U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 22 , 20 10
Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5 , the cour t has det erm ined that this op i n i o n s hould not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5th Cir. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-40787 Document: 00511149912 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2010N o

. 0 9

- 4 0 7 8 7

( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. W i t h r e s p e c t t o U c l e s ’ s

r e m a i n i n g c l a i m s , o u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d
, t h e r e s p o n s e , a n d

c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s

m o t i o n f

o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D
, c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 t h C i r

. R

. 4 2

. 2

.

2 Case: 09-40787 Document: 00511149912 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2010
#### John Szafranski, Respondent, v Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[773 NYS2d 636]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Salvatore R. Martoche, J.), entered September 17, 2003. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon granting leave to reargue, adhered to a prior decision granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted plaintiff’s motion to increase the ad damnum clause.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking partial summary judgment on liability against defendant Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority with respect to Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Szafranski v Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth.*([appeal No. 1] 5 AD3d 1111 [2004]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Blanding, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 822]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered October 29, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

After affording defendant sufficient opportunity to be heard, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The record reveals that defendant’s plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that defendant’s conclusory claim of innocence with respect to the element of intent to benefit himself was contradicted by the statements he made during the thorough plea allocution. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.
cc: Hon. Kenneth Cory, District Judge 

Robert Qualey, District Judge, Pro Tern 

Fred Duewel 

Michelle Kathleen Krohn 

Richard Martinez, Jr. 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e
Order filed October 25 , 2016.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00508

- CV

____________ BLU SHIELD S CONSTRUCTION, LLC AND ARNOLD “BLU” SHIELDS , Appellant s
V. SCOTT CONKLING, MELI SSA CONKLING, ET AL , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 56th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15

- CV

- 0112



### ORDER
Appellant, Arnold “Blu” Shields , is prosecuting this appeal pro se. Shields file d a notice of appeal on behalf of Blu Shields Construction, LLC as its “managing member.” Though generally a corporation may be represented in litigation o nly by a licensed attorney , a non

- attorney may perfect appeal on behalf of a corporation. Kunstoplast of Am. v. Formosa Plastics Corp. , U SA, 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996). Nonetheless, Arnold “Blu” Shields may not represent Blu ShieldsConstruction, LLC in this appeal. See Amron Props., LLC v. McGown Oil Co. , No.

14

- 03

- 01432

- CV, 2004 WL 438783, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Mar.
1 1, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.). On July 20, 2016, this court notified all parties that Blu Shields Construction, LLC was subject to dismissal from this appeal unless the corporation filed a response through an attorney on or before August 1, 2016. On August 16, 2016, this court granted the corporation’s motion to extend time to obta in counsel to October 17, 2016.

See id

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to Blu Shields Construction only. The appeal will proceed with Arnold “Blu” Shields as the sole appellant.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Christopher.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned, Punit Dhillon, President and Chief Executive Officer of OncoSec Medical Incorporated (the “**Company**”) hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended July 31, 2011 (the “**Report**”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:    October 25, 2011 | By:                                       | /S/   PUNIT DHILLON |
|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|---------------------|
|                                 | Punit   Dhillon                           |
| * *                             | *President   and Chief Executive Officer* |
| * *                             | *(Principal   Executive Officer)*         |

 

 

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 OncoSec Medical Incorporated and will be retained by OncoSec Medical Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
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
  (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.
 Date:  May 20, 2008
    /s/ Crit S. DeMentName:
    Crit S. DeMentTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant
      to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Crafty Admiral Enterprises, Ltd.
      (Registrant) on Form 10Q-SB filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      filed concurrently herewith (the Report), I, Lawrence Siccia, Chief Executive
      Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of Registrant,
      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
      and belief:





(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(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 Registrant.








Dated:
      November 5, 2006     /s/
      Lawrence Siccia


By:
      Lawrence Siccia, Chief Executive Officer, Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification ofCFO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

*Icertify that this periodic report containing the issuer’s financial statementsfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that informationcontained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.*

 
|         | *By: /s/  John F. Coger*             | * *            |
|--------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------|
|         | * *                             | * *            |
|         | *Executive  Vice President, CFO/COO* |
|         | * *                             |
| *** *** | *Date:*                              | *November 10, 2004* |   |
|              |                                      |                     |  |  |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 2075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-589]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than January 30, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Steve Foley, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. Marshall Truman Reynolds and Douglas Vernon Reynolds, both of 
Huntington, West Virginia, Samuel George Kapourales, Williamson, West 
Virginia, and Todd R. Fry, Barboursville, West Virginia; to retain 6.64 
percent of the outstanding shares of American Gateway Financial 
Corporation, Port Allen, Louisiana, and its subsidiary, American 
Gateway Bank, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 9, 
2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-589 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
STATE of Missouri, EX REL., Elaine TAYLOR, Relator, v. The Honorable Jack C. BANAS, Respondent.

No. ED 107249

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, WRIT DIVISION VII.

DATE: December 11, 2018

Benicia A. Baker-Livorsi, 6 Westbury Drive, St. Charles, MO 63301, for appellant.

Deborah J. Tomich, 309 N. Main St., Suite 210, St. Charles, MO 63301, for respondent.

KURT S. ODENWALD, Presiding Judge

Relator, Elaine Taylor ("Relator"), filed a petition for entry of a writ of prohibition and mandamus directing Respondent not to take any action to forcibly remove the Relator from 60 Tahoma Drive in Foristell, Missouri ("Property"); to order Respondent to vacate the February 21, 2018 order appointing the commissioner; and to order the Respondent to appoint a receiver to monitor the sale of the real estate as permitted under Missouri law. In the alternative, Relator requested that she be granted an evidentiary hearing before she is dispossessed of her possessory rights to Property. After reviewing the suggestions filed in support of the petition, this Court entered a preliminary order in prohibition directing Respondent to file his answer and suggestions in opposition to the petition in prohibition on or before November 1, 2018. The preliminary order stated that a failure to answer would result in a judgment by default granting the relief demanded in the petition. The preliminary order further directed Respondent to take no action in the underlying matter until further notice.

Respondent did not file an answer to the petition on or before November 1, 2018. Accordingly, we find Respondent to be in default and enter judgment making permanent the preliminary order in prohibition. *State ex rel. Kansas City S. Rv. Co. v. David,* 105 S.W.3d 517, 518 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) ; *State ex rel. Haves v. Forder.* 973 S.W.2d 555, 556 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998).

Relator requested alternative remedies in her petition for prohibition and mandamus. Accordingly, we order that Respondent is directed to refrain from any action to forcibly remove Relator from Property until such time as Relator is granted an evidentiary hearing before Respondent regarding the appointment of the commissioner and actions taken with regard to the sale of Property. Respondent is further ordered to conduct the evidentiary hearing within 60 days of the entry of this opinion.

Philip M. Hess, J., and Roy L. Richter, J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 49 (Monday, March 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5551]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP08-591-002]


Equitrans LP; Notice of Filing

March 9, 2009.
    Take notice that on March 5, 2009, Equitrans, L.P. filed an offer 
of settlement in the form of a Stipulation and Agreement resolving all 
issues concerning Equitrans' Tennessee Capacity Surcharge Tracker.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the date as indicated 
below. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket 
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the 
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to 
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, 
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline 
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the 
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the 
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aee8ebfcede1c0c2c7c0cbfddbdedec1dcdaeec8cbdccd80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="edaba8bfaea28381848388be989d9d829f99ad8b889f8ec38a829b">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 13, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5551 Filed 3-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>