alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Reed v. Clinton *et al.*

No. 2198,

Okla. T.

Opinion Filed May 12, 1909.

(101 Pac. 1055.)

INDIANS — Allotments—“Heirs.” In the provisions • of section 5 of the act of Congress approved February 8, 1887, (24 Stat. 389, c. 119; 1 Supp. Rev. St. p. 53(5; 3 Fed. St. Ann. p. 494),-a white person is not excepted from the. term “heirs” of such allottee

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*Error from District*Gourt, *Pottawatomie*County; *B. F. Burwell, Judge.*

*611Action by Louise Eeed against John Clinton and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*W. S. Pendleton,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. H. Wood,*for defendants in error.

Williams, J.

The only question involved in this case is as to whether or not the conveyance from the defendant in error, John Clinton, to the father of the plaintiff in error, was valid. Section 5 of the act of Congress approved February 8, 1887 (24 Stat. 389, c. 119; 1 Supp. Rev. St. p. 535; 3 Fed. St. Ann. p. 494), provides:

> “That upon the approval of the allotments provided for in this act by the Secretary of the Interior, he shall cause patents to issue therefor in the name of the allottees, which patents shall be of the legal effect, and declare that United States does and will hold the land thus allotted, for the period of twenty-five years, in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made or, in case of his decease, of his heirs according to- the laws of the state or territory where such land is located, and that at the expiration of said period the United States will convey the same by patent to said Indian, or his heirs.as aforesaid, in fee, discharged of said trust and free of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever: Provided, that the President of the United States may in any ease in his discretion extend the period. And if any conveyance shall be made of the lands set apart and allotted as herein provided, or any contract made touching the same, before the expiration of the time above mentioned, such conveyance or contract shall be absolutely null and void.” (See *Goodwin v Buffalo,*162 Fed. 817, 89 C. C. A. 525.)

The plaintiff in error insists that because the defendant in error is a white person, and not an Indian by blood, although he was a member by adoption of said tribe of Indians, such restrictions would not operate as to him, but that it was the intention of Congress not to include in the term “heirs” white persons, although members of said tribe. The clause, “if any conveyance shall be made of the lands set apart and allotted as herein provided, or any contract made touching the sa<me, before the ex*612piration of the time above mentioned, such conveyance or contract shall be absolutely null and void,” when, considered in‘connection with the entire section, is plain and unambiguous. We are not permitted to look at the purpose for which the statute may have been passed, with a view of overturning the plain terms of the statute as expressed.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
#### In the Matter of Edward John Roder, an Attorney, Respondent.

— Grievance Committee for the Eighth Judicial District, Petitioner. Resignation accepted and name stricken from the roll of attorneys. — Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Doerr and Denman, JJ.
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Lorrie Ann Archibald, Chief Executive Officer of Ireland Inc. (the Company), 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:

|(i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|(ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                           

| | By:    | /s/
      Lorrie Ann Archibald
| | ------ | ------------------------------
| | Name:  | LORRIE ANN ARCHIBALD          
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer       
| | Date:  | April 4, 2007                 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, John F. Cole, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Hytek Microsystems, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Hytek Microsystems, Inc.



| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | 



I, Philip S. Bushnell, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Hytek Microsystems, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2003 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Hytek Microsystems,
Inc.



| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | 



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hytek Microsystems, Inc. and will be retained by Hytek Microsystems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130187 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, JOANN KUSMIERZ, KERRY KUSMIERZ, Justices
 

KIM L. LINDEBAUM, JAMES B. 

LINDEBAUM, and M SUPPLY CO., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 130187 

 COA: 258021 
 Bay CC: 01-003467-CZ

JOYCE SCHMITT and DIANE RANKIN,

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

RONALD SCHMITT,

Defendant.
 

_________________________________________/ 

On November 14, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave 

to appeal the November 15, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the 

Court, the application is again considered. MCR 7.302(G)(1). In lieu of granting leave 

to appeal, we REVERSE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment assessing case 

evaluation sanctions, and REMAND this case to the Bay Circuit Court for further 

proceedings not inconsistent with this order. Because the parties stipulated to a lump 

sum case evaluation award, there was no “amount of the evaluation . . . as to . . . 

particular pair[s] of parties” for purposes of MCR 2.403(O)(4)(a). Without such an 

amount, the court cannot compare the verdict to the case evaluation award for each pair 

of parties as required by the court rules, and the court cannot determine whether either 

party received a more favorable verdict. Therefore, neither party is entitled to case 

evaluation sanctions. Plaintiffs are directed to reimburse defendants for the case 

evaluation sanctions that have already been paid. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

d1121 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-2820

LT Case No. 2023-CF-000190

_____________________________

SAMUEL DAVID PELHAM,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County.

R. Lee Smith, Judge.

Matthew Metz, Public Defender, and Zachary Wiseman, 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. 

Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

March 12, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS, C.J., and EISNAUGLE and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
**Exhibit 32.1** **CERTIFICATION    PURSUANT TO** **18 U.S.C.    1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE    SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     I, Anthony Taylor, President and Chief Executive Officer of    Montpelier Re Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”), to the    extent 18 U.S.C. 1350 is applicable, hereby certify, to the    best of my knowledge, that the Company’s Annual Report on    Form 10-K    for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the    Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the    “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information    contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of    the Company.      By: /s/  Anthony    Taylor    Name: Anthony Taylor     Title:     Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer     Date: March 1, 2007     I, Kernan V. Oberting, Chief Financial Officer of Montpelier Re    Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”), to the extent    18 U.S.C. 1350 is applicable, hereby certify, to the best    of my knowledge, that the Company’s Annual Report on    Form 10-K    for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the    Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the    “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information    contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of    the Company.      By: /s/  Kernan    V. Oberting    Name: Kernan V. Oberting     Title:     Chief Financial Officer     Date: March 1, 2007
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 01/01-0417]

Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 01/01-0417 issued to Gemini Investors V, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and void.

United States Small Business Administration.

Thomas G. Morris,

Acting Associate Administrator, Director, Office of SBIC Liquidation, Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2021-13859 Filed 6-28-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE;P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000701345
<NAME> US AIRWAYS GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,224,411
<SECURITIES>                                   857,068
<RECEIVABLES>                                  410,984<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                    223,458
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,837,192
<PP&E>                                       6,420,380
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,719,346
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,923,916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,714,307
<BONDS>                                      2,441,084
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          358,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        91,119
<OTHER-SE>                                     171,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,923,916
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,428,860
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,914,525
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             192,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                629,092
<INCOME-TAX>                                    83,818
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            545,274
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   545,274
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     6.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.18
<FN>
<F1>Receivables are presented net of allowances.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
(121 App. Div. 588.)

#### MAUCHER v. HARTZHEIM.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 23, 1907.)

Clerks of Courts—Liability bob Negligence—Abstracts ob Title—Diminution ob Names.

If “Cassie” is a diminution of “Catherine,” it is not so generally known or used; and where requisition was made upon a county clerk for a search against "Catherine J., wife of Edward J.,” he was not negligent in omitting from his return a judgment against “Cassie J.”

Appeal from Municipal Court of New York.

Action by Frank G. Maucher against Charles T. Hartzheim. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, GAY-NOR, RICH, and MILDER, JJ.

C. W. Wilson, Jr., for appellant.

Ferd W. Buermeyer, for respondent.

*372GAYNOR, J.

The plaintiff made a requisition on the defendant, who is the clerk of Kings county, for a search against “Catherine Joyce, wife of Edward Joyce,” and this action is against the said clerk for damages for negligence in omitting from his return a judgment against Cassie Joyce. “Cassie” is said to be a diminution of Catherine, like Katie, but if it be it is not generally known or used as such. We are referred to no authority which would sustain the conclusion that the omission of the judgment was negligence.

The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. All concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

MARY ROBUSTELLI, )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) Cause No.: 2:16-CV-31-JEM

 )

LUKE OIL CO., INC. et al., )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Stipulation of Dismissal [DE 37], filed by the parties on

September 13, 2017. A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing

a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

Plaintiff has done so in this case, and the Court accordingly ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims are

DISMISSED with prejudice.

SO ORDERED this 15th day of September, 2017.

 s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00031-JEM document 38 filed 09/15/17 page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000714719
<NAME> FIRST COLONIAL GROUP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          14,062
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             210
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     54,771
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          21,154
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            21,125
<LOANS>                                        218,653
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,494
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 319,073
<DEPOSITS>                                     260,409
<SHORT-TERM>                                    19,476
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,988
<LONG-TERM>                                      8,538
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,776
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,886
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 319,073
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,265
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,813
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    57
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                17,135
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,453
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,100
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,035
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      515
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 308
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,751
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,807
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,007
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,007
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.69
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,465
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,190
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,443
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      529
<RECOVERIES>                                        65
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,494
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,626
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            868
        

</TABLE>
# L_2008258EN.01006201.xml

| 26.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 258/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 258/62

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 949/2008

of 25 September 2008

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 900/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/08 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/08 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 25 September 2008, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 25 September 2008, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 25 September 2008, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 shall be 23,903 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 26 September 2008.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 September 2008.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 196, 28.7.2007, p. 26.

2

---