alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### READ v. LUTHER GOLD DREDGING CO. et al.

Second Division. Nome.

October 10, 1925.

1. Account, Action on <S=»6(3) — Pleading—Itemized Account Sued on.

The demand for an itemized account is not one for the court to act on in the first instance, but should be made to the party who has knowledge thereof; the court may thereafter order a further account on application.

2. Mechanics’ Liens &wkey;»l29 — Separate Contracts.

Labor performed under separate and distinct contracts, upon the same improvement, where the labor is continuous, or substantially so, may be joined in one mechanic’s lien.

The defendant Harry Dobson appeared by his attorney and, on the 3d day of October, 1925, upon a demand for a verified account and notice of motion to require the plaintiff to separately state and number his causes of action set forth in the complaint, moved the court for orders in that behalf.

James Frawley, of Nome, for plaintiff.

Geo. D. Schofield, of Nome, for defendant Dobson.

DOMEN, 'District Judge.

The court is of the opinion that the demand for verified account is not one for the court to act upon in the first instance, but for the plaintiff to act upon under the penalty prescribed by section 906, Compiled Daws of Alaska, for failure to comply with the demand, if, indeed, it should be found that the account referred to in the complaint be of such character as the statute contemplates as being subject to the demand made.

Section 906 of the Compiled Daws of Alaska, after requiring the adverse party, within five days after a demand thereof, in writing, to deliver a copy of the account, or be precluded from giving evidence thereof, further provides:

> “The court or judge thereof may order a *further account*when the one filed or delivered is defective.”

The motion in this case seems to contemplate that the court' make an order for the delivery of the account mentioned in the first instance. This we do not think is contemplated by the statute.

*349As to the motion for an order requiring plaintiff to separately state and number his causes of action set forth in the complaint, the court is of the opinion that the complaint in this respect is properly drawn, and constitutes but one cause of action, based upon two several contracts of employment and for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien, filed for the services rendered by plaintiff under said contracts and alleged to be continuous.

The question as to whether the services rendered under the two contracts mentioned in the complaint were continuous, in fact, is a question that need not now be considered.

It has, however, been held, as to labor performed under separate and distinct contracts, but upon the same improvement, that if the labor is continuous, or substantially so, the filing of a notice of lien after the entire work is completed is sufficient as to all the contracts. Capron v. Strout, 11 Nev. 304; Miller v. Batchelder, 117 Mass. 179, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 301. And our statute (section 12, chapter 13, Laws 1915) expressly provides for such contingency.

The motions are accordingly denied.

<@3»See same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests *&*Indexes
99.1


Officer's Certificate


Re:  Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2003-NC5 (the "Trust"),
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-NC5, issued pursuant
to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as May 1, 2003 (the
"Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), by and among Morgan Stanley ABS
Capital I Inc., as depositor (the "Depositor"), Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company, as trustee (the "Trustee"), HomEq Servicing
Corporation, as servicer (the "Servicer"), and NC Capital Corporation,
as responsible party


I, Arthur Q. Lyon, certify to the Depositor and the Trustee, and
their officers, directors and affiliates, and with the knowledge
and intent that they will rely upon this certification that:

(i) a review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar
year ending December 31,2003 and of the performance of the Servicer
under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my
supervision, and

(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement throughout such year.

Date: March 24, 2004
BY: /s/: Arthur Q. Lyon
Arthur Q. Lyon
President
Elijah MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2338

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 19, 2018 Rehearing Denied December 26, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and David A. Henson, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tabitha Herrera and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Rowe, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
In the INTEREST OF P.E.C.P and R.R.J., Children.

B.W., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-2617

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earthquakes

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Filters

              - science_science(68)
              - products_data(41)
              - products_maps(14)
              - products_publications(909)
              - products_software(1)
              - products_web_tools(6)
              - multimedia_audio(11)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(11)
              - multimedia_image(87)
              - multimedia_image-141769(3)
              - multimedia_image-141771(67)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(9)
              - multimedia_image-141776(5)
              - multimedia_image-207195(1)
              - multimedia_slideshow(8)
              - multimedia_video(99)
              - multimedia_video-149194(66)
              - multimedia_video-149195(22)
              - multimedia_video-149196(8)
              - multimedia_video-149198(3)
              - news_news-149245(26)
              - (-)news_news-149246(2)
              - news_news-149248(9)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_news-149250(16)
              - news_other_news(11)
              - connect_locations(1)
              - connect_social_media(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(60)
              - other_basic-37(2)
              - other_basic-42(35)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - (-)california(2)
              - colorado(1)
              - florida(1)
              - new york(1)
              - puerto rico(1)

## By Year

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Science Snippet        September 23, 2022        Redwood Tree Stumps Offer Clues to Past Earthquakes

Science Snippet        October 1, 2022        Loma Prieta Earthquake 33rd Anniversary Compilation
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 18

- 00042

- CV

Joseph M. ESPARZA d/b/a Volaire Jet Interiors and Volaire Jet Interiors, Inc.,

Appellants

v.

Chad F. CHRISTIAN

, Appellee

From the County Court a t Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CV03128

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 26, 2018

VACATED AND DISMISSED

The parties have filed a joint motion to vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss this

appeal because they have reached an agreement th at resolves this dispute

. We grant the parties’

motion, vacate the trial court’s October 12, 2017 judgment, and dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2); Caballero v. Heart of Tex. Pizza, LLC , 70 S.W.3d 180, 181 (Tex. App.

— San

Antonio 2001, no pet.).

PER CURIAM
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD–1473–14

WILLIAM BRYAN FINLEY, III, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

WILLIAMSON COUNTY

MEYERS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

In Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), the majority concluded

that the defendant’s actions of displaying a gun, refusing to put the gun down, and

threatening to shoot himself did not constitute “force against” a peace officer within the

meaning of Texas Penal Code §38.03. I dissented in that case because I felt that the

defendant exerted force in opposition to the officers in the form of power, violence, and
Finley dissent–Page 2

pressure against them, and that his actions were a clear threat to the officers. The

majority now says that “pulling away from the officers satisfies the physical in opposition

or hostility to the police officers requirement” and concludes that the Appellant in this

case “used force against the officers by pulling against the officers’ force.” I am having a

hard time understanding how brandishing a weapon in the presence of multiple police

officers and threatening to shoot yourself if the officers attempt to arrest you–a situation

that could result in the death or serious injury of multiple people–is not using force

against an officer but holding your arms in front of you is.

Because I would hold that Appellant’s conduct here was not sufficient to constitute

force against an officer under Texas Penal Code §38.03, I respectfully dissent.

Filed: February 24, 2016

Publish
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 18, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 971 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-715, K2025-714.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30032 Filed 12-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Charles Sander, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Catcher Holdings, Inc.;

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.

Date: April 26, 2006



/s/ Charles SanderCharles Sander President (Principal Executive Officer)
Keith WROMAS, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1786

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



I, R.
Christopher Hoehn-Saric, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of eSylvan, Inc. (the Registrant), certify, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2003 of the Registrant (the Report), that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) 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
Registrant.



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ R. Christopher Hoehn-Saric              
|                                            
|R. Christopher Hoehn-Saric November 13, 2003
James IRWIN, Appellant, v. Duke R. HAWKINS, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-360

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 26, 2018

Maureen Monaghan Matheson, of Matheson Appellate Law, P.A., Satellite Beach, E.C. Scott Wright, of The Wright Law Group, Melbourne, and Robert M. Moletteire, Melbourne, for Appellant.

Elizabeth C. Wheeler, of Elizabeth C. Wheeler, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

Contact:

Rudy Wilson
Chief Executive Officer
Asia Automotive Acquisition Corporation
(248) 593-8330

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


                     ASIA AUTOMOTIVE ACQUISITION CORPORATION
                        COMPLETES INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING

            Birmingham, Michigan, April 18, 2006 -- Asia Automotive Acquisition
Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: AAACU) announced today that it consummated its
initial public offering of 5,031,250 units on April 18, 2006, which amount
included the exercise in full of the underwriters' over-allotment option. Each
unit consists of one share of common stock and one warrant. The units were sold
at an offering price of $8.00 per unit. The initial public offering generated
aggregate gross proceeds of $40,250,000 to the Company. Rodman & Renshaw, LLC
acted as lead manager and Chardan Capital Markets, LLC acted as co-manager of
the initial public offering.

            Audited financial statements as of April 18, 2006 reflecting receipt
of the proceeds of the initial public offering will be issued by the Company and
included as Exhibit 99.1 to a Current Report on Form 8-K to be filed by the
Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

            Asia Automotive Acquisition Corporation is a blank check company
recently formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange,
asset acquisition or other similar business combination with an unidentified
operating business in the Asian automotive component supply industry.

            Information about this offering is available in the prospectus filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, a copy of which may be obtained
from Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, 1270 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020.

            A registration statement relating to these securities has been filed
with and declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission. This
press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an
offer to buy nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state in
which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration
or qualification under the securities law of any such state. The offering of
these securities will be made only by means of a prospectus.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earthquakes

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Filters

              - (-)other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

## By Year

              - 2020(1)
              - (-)2018(1)

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

General  Earthquake ABC: A Child's View of Earthquake Facts and Feelings©
Exhibit 99.1        Officer's Certificate regarding Annual Statement of
                    Compliance of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.

                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

     The undersigned officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies on behalf of the Company
and on his own behalf for purposes of the WAMU MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2003-AR6, as follows:

     1. I am the duly appointed, qualified and acting President of the Company.

     2. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement related to the
above-referenced series of Certificates.

     3. I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate
on behalf of the Company.

     4. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and performance under this Agreement has been made under my
supervision.

     5. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 15, 2004.





                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.


                     By: /s/ Michael L. Parker
                         Michael L. Parker,
                         President and Director
**
Exhibit 34.2 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (Ernst & Young LLP) 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

U.S. Bank National Association 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S.Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed SecuritiesPlatform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar and paying agent services, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2020, except for servicing criteria Items 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(v),1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(v)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report.Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on ourexamination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified PublicAccountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing suchother procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicingactivities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selectedtransactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affectedthe balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide areasonable basis for our opinion. 

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year endedMarch 31, 2020, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/Ernst & Young LLP 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

May 28, 2020 
**