alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chi ef Judge, United States District Court for 1 the Eastern District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2641

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appea l from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Dominic Blackshiers, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 20, 1997

Filed: August 26 , 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, Domini c Blackshiers appeals the district court & s application o f 1 a firearm enhancement to his drug sentence, see U.S . Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (1995), after it vacated Blackshiers & s 1 8 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) conviction under Bailey v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995) .-2-

After a careful review of the record and the parties & submi ssions, we reject Blackshiers & s arguments. Se e Gardiner v. United States , 114 F.3d 734, 735- 37 (8th Cir. 1997);-3-

United States v. Harrison , 113 F.3d 135, 137- 38 (8th Cir. 1997) . Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the distric t court. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHT H CIRCUIT.
#### Powell, trustee, *et al. v.*Heyman *et al.*

July 17, 1915.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Hammond. Richmond superior court. February 11, 1914.

*B. B. Blackburn,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Pierce Brothers*and *Irvin Alexander,*contra.

Hill, J.

1. A deed from George S. Hookey, dated September 13, 1864, conveyed certain real estate in the city of Augusta to Louis A. Dugas, in trust for Catherine M. Hookey ior life, with the power of appointment on her death to such person or persons or for such purpose or purposes as she should by her last will and testament designate and appoint. *Held,*that the trust created was limited to the life-estate conveyed to Catherine M. Hookey.

2. The will of Catherine M. Hookey, dated April 11, 1883, created a life-estate in her husband and her daughter Helena S. Hookey (who after-wards married Frank Powell), and upon the death of these two the property was to be sold and the proceeds divided as follows: $1,000 to Catherine M. Sweigan and the remainder among the children of Helena; or should Helena die without issue, the share devised to her was to be divided among the children of the testatrix in life at the date of the death of Helena.' *Held,*that the estate thus created was a legal estate, and not an equitable one.

3. A judge of the superior court at chambers has no authority, on petition in vacation, to order a sale of the legal estate of minors, nor do the minors become wards in chancery. Webb v. *Hicks,*117 *Ga.*335 (43 S. E. 738). Nor has a judge of the superior court authority in chambers to dispose of the property of adult contingent remaindermen.

4. The order of sale and reinvestment in this case, having been granted at chambers, is absolutely void.

5. Equity will not confirm'a void order unless it is made to appear that the rights of none of the parties interested will be injured; and therefore it was incumbent on the plaintiffs in the present action to show the propriety of the sale of the property in Richmond county and reinvestment of the proceeds in Atlanta, and to show that the minors and contingent remaindermen would not be injured thereby. There was no allegation in the petition to this effect.

6. There is no equity in the petition, and the same should have been dismissed on demurrer. *Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
##### 



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 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Robert E. Mead, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 result of
operations of the Company. Dated: November 12, 2004
    
    /s/ ROBERT E. MEADRobert E. Mead
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         133,714
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  433,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    758,209
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,686,830
<PP&E>                                       3,663,305
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,969,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,427,166
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,500,000
<COMMON>                                     4,327,777
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,898,703)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,969,596
<SALES>                                        966,436
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               966,439
<CGS>                                          819,801
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,877,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,416,233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,702,546)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,702,546)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,702,546)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1184 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1184

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to waive nonimmigrant visa 
fees for aliens seeking to enter the United States to engage in certain 
                         charitable activities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 17, 1997

   Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
 DeWine, and Mr. Biden) introduced the following bill; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to waive nonimmigrant visa 
fees for aliens seeking to enter the United States to engage in certain 
                         charitable activities.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF NONIMMIGRANT VISA FEES FOR CERTAIN CHARITABLE 
              PURPOSES.

    Section 281 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1351) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Subject 
to such criteria as the Secretary of State may prescribe, including the 
duration of stay of the alien and the financial burden upon the 
charitable organization, the Secretary of State shall waive or reduce 
the fee for application and issuance of a nonimmigrant visa for any 
alien coming to the United States primarily for, or in activities 
related to, a charitable purpose involving health or nursing care, the 
provision of food or housing, job training, or any other similar direct 
service or assistance to poor or otherwise needy individuals in the 
United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### William D. Marvel *vs.*John W. Cobb.

Barnstable.

November 9, 1909.

January 6, 1910.

Present: Knowlton, C. J., Morton, Braley, Sheldon, & Bugs, JJ.

*Zand Court. Practice, Civil,*Appeal.

Upon an appeal to this court under St. 1904, c. 448, § 8, from a judgment of the Land Court, this court is limited in its jurisdiction to the consideration of questians of law, and cannot revise the findings of fact made in the Land Court.

Knowlton, C. J.

This is an appeal upon questions of law, from an order of judgment of the Land Court, in favor of the tenant in a writ of entry brought to recover land in the town of Bourne and county of Barnstable.

The facts relied upon by the demandant to support his claim are stated in the decision of the Land Court, and are the same that are recited in the opinion in *Marvel*v. *Cobb,*200 Mass. 293. The report shows also a claim of appeal from the findings of the Land Court, and certain issues were framed for trial in the Superior Court. We infer from what appears of record, although this is not quite certain, that this last appeal has not been prosecuted. See R. L. c. 128, § 15. It seems to be assumed by both parties that the case is ripe for hearing upon the present appeal. This was taken under the St. 1904, c. 448, § 8, which provides that “ questions of law arising in the Land Court on any decision or decree in proceedings under this act may be taken by any party directly to the Supreme Judicial Court for revision, in the same manner as questions of law are taken to that court from the Superior Court.”

An inspection of the record shows no question of law that entered into the order of judgment for the tenant in the Land Court. This order rests entirely on findings of fact upon evidence, in matters wherein the demandant had the burden of proof. The Land Court found that the demandant failed *118to establish any of the material facts upon which he rested his claim of title to the land. It is a familiar rule of law that, upon an appeal of this kind, this court is limited in its jurisdiction to the consideration of questions of law, and cannot revise the findings of fact made in the trial court. *Electric Welding Co.*v. Prince, 200 Mass. 386, 392.

*W. D. Marvel, pro se.*

*A. Fuller,*for the tenant.

*Order of judgment affirmed.*

The case was submitted on briefs.
Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 327 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1758
Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 327 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:1759
Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 327 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:1760
Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 327 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:1761
Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 327 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:1762
Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 327 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:1763
Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 327 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:1764
Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 327 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:1765
Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 327 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:1766
Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 327 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:1767
Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 327 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:1768
Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 327 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:1769
Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 327 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:1770
Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 327 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:1771
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Tim Paterson-Brown, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Kof MGT Capital Investments Inc;

 

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

 

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

 

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
|   | By:                     | /s/ TIM PATERSON BROWN |
|--------|-------------------------|------------------------|
|   | Tim Paterson-Brown      |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

March 17, 2008

 

E-2

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,101,520
<SECURITIES>                                   141,201
<RECEIVABLES>                                  787,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    504,872
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,056,259
<PP&E>                                         224,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,255,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,157,452
<BONDS>                                        868,680
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          456,250
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,133
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,018,580
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,255,057
<SALES>                                        647,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               647,753
<CGS>                                          420,535
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  420,535
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,665,611)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (79,800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,585,811)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,585,811)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.28)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Malverne Volunteer Fire Department et al., Appellants, v New York State Office of Fire Prevention and Control et al., Respondents.

[947 NYS2d 576]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the New York State Fallen Firefighters Memorial Appeals Committee dated August 9, 2010, denying a request to include Paul Ryan Brady’s name on the New York State Fallen Firefighters’ Memorial Wall, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), entered March 9, 2011, which, without a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted, the determination of the New York State Fallen Firefighters Memorial Appeals Committee dated August 9, 2010, is annulled, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to direct the New York State Fallen Firefighters Memorial Appeals Committee to include Paul Ryan *1063Brady’s name on the New York State Fallen Firefighters’ Memorial Wall.

In this proceeding in which the petitioner challenges an agency determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing, we must consider whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion *(see*CPLR 7803 [3]; *Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle,*24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]). In such a proceeding, courts “examine whether the action taken by the agency has a rational basis” and will overturn that action only “where it is ‘taken without sound basis in reason’ or ‘regard to the facts’ ” *(Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*15 NY3d 275, 280 [2010], quoting *Matter of Peckham v Calogero,*12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]; *see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 232 [1974]), or where it is “arbitrary and capricious” *(Matter of Deerpark Farms, LLC v Agricultural & Farmland Protection Bd. of Orange County,*70 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2010]).

Here, the determination of the New York State Fallen Firefighters Memorial Appeals Committee (hereinafter the appeals committee) that the death of firefighter Paul Ryan Brady was not a “line of duty death” within the selection criteria for inclusion on the New York State Fallen Firefighters Memorial Wall is arbitrary and capricious, and did not have a rational basis in the record. The record demonstrates that, under the applicable selection criteria, Paul Ryan Brady died while engaged in an action that was “required, authorized or recognized by law, rule, regulation, [or] condition of employment.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the petition, annulled the determination of the appeals committee, and directed the appeals committee to include Paul Ryan Brady’s name on the New York State Fallen Firefighters’ Memorial Wall. Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.
ex_266715.htm


 


Exhibit 4.2


 


CORTLAND BANCORP


194 West Main Street


Cortland, OH 44410


 


August 5, 2021


 


Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, NE


Washington, D.C. 20549


 


Re: Cortland Bancorp Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2021


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Cortland Bancorp, an Ohio corporation, is today filing a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2021 (the "Form 10-Q"), as executed on August 5, 2021.


 


Pursuant to the instructions relating to the Exhibits in Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, Cortland Bancorp hereby agrees to furnish the Commission, upon request, copies of instruments and agreements defining the rights of holders of its long-term debt and of the long-term debt of its consolidated subsidiaries, which are not being filed as exhibits to the Form 10-Q. No such instrument or agreement represents long-term debt exceeding 10% of the total assets of Cortland Bancorp and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.


 


Very truly yours,


 


	/s/ James M. Gasior	 
	
			James M. Gasior

				 
	
			President and CEO
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002****(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

Pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each ofthe undersigned officers of Force Protection, Inc., a Nevada corporation(the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

The Amended Quarterly Report for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2007 (the “Form 10-Q/A”) of the Company fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q/Afairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Date: July 19, 2007           |
|-------------------------------|
|                          |
| /s/ Gordon McGilton           |   |
| Gordon McGilton               |
| Chief Executive Officer       |
|                          |
| Date: July 19, 2007           |
|                          |
| /s/ Michael Durski            |   |
| Michael Durski                |
| Chief Financial Officer       |
| Principal Accounting  Officer |

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Donna Gayle Holcomb v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00349-CR

Trial court case number: 1141352

Trial court: 230th District Court of Harris County

The panel having voted to deny rehearing and the en banc court having voted 

unanimously against reconsideration en banc, Donna Gayle Holcomb’s motion for rehearing and 

alternative motion for en banc reconsideration is denied.

Justice’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Bland and Keyes*

* Justice Huddle, who participated in the original decision, resigned her office on June 14, 2017, 

and did not participate in the consideration of the motion for rehearing.

En Banc Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, 

Massengale, Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey.

Date: February 8, 2018