alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Simmerson *v.*Tennery.

An action by an assignee of the claim of a married woman, against her husband, for moneys belonging to her and converted by the husband to his own use, is not barred by the limitations of chapter 3 of the code of 1853, (2 8. *&*C. 947,) where *less*than six years have intervened between such assignment and the commencement of the action.

Error to the District Court of Sandusky County.

*391The action was originally brought December 23, 1873, in the court of common pleas, by the defendant in error, Emeretta Tennery, against her father, Joseph Simmerson, now deceased. He having died during the pendency of the action, it was revived against his administrator, Alonzo Simmerson, the present plaintiff in error.

The petition of plaintiff alleged that Rhoda Simmerson, her mother, and wife of Joseph, died about October, 1871, leaving a will whereby she devised to her daughter, the plaintiff, her interest in a lot of land in Clyde, Sandusky county, together with all her claims or rights of action against her husband. It further alleged that in March, 1863, this lot was purchased by Joseph and Rhoda jointly for $520, the conveyance being to them as tenants in common of equal shares, Rhoda paying $200 of the purchase-money out of her own separate moneys.

That, at this time Rhoda owned a certain'promissory note for $100, which Joseph collected, and applied $70 of the proceeds toward paying the purchase-money, and appropriated the balance to his own use. The deferred payments were secured by a purchase-money mortgage on the premises. To meet the deferred payments, when the same became due, Joseph and Rhoda sold a portion of the lot for $450, out of which the balance of purchase-money ($250) was paid; the rest was appropriated by Joseph to his own use. The petition prayed judgment for the sums claimed to be due, with interest, and for an account.

The answer, among other matters of defense, alleged that the plaintiff’s cause of action had not accrued to her within six years prior to bringing suit. This the reply denied.

The court of common pleas, without passing upon any other issues, held that the plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations, and rendered judgment in favor of defendants.

This judgment was reversed in the district court.

*B. Meek & J. M.*Rhodes, for plaintiff in error, cited *Ong*v. *Sumner,*1 Cin. Sup. C. Rep. 424.

*John M.*Lemmon. of Lemmon, *Finch & Lemmon,*for de *392fendant in error,

cited *Weisner*v. *Zaun,*39 Wis. 188 ; *Burke*v. Beveridge, 15 Minn. 205 ; *Bauman*v. *Grubbs,*26 Ind. 419; *Dunham*v. *Sage,*52 N. Y. 229; *Morrison*v. *Noeman,*47 Ill. 477; *Michart*v. *Wyatt,*21 Ala. 813 ; *State*v. Trautman, 72 N. C. 551; *Wilson*v. Wilson, 36 Cal. 447.

By the Court.

The district court did not err in reversing the judgment of the court of common pleas. The plaintiff’s devisor was within the saving clause of the statute (Code, § 19 ; 2 S. *&*C. 949), during her coverture.

*Judgment affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4977 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4977

   To amend the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program to reduce the cost-
   sharing requirement for colleges and universities and to provide 
     incentives for Noyce scholars to teach in high-needs schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 25, 2010

 Mr. Mitchell introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                  Committee on Science and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program to reduce the cost-
   sharing requirement for colleges and universities and to provide 
     incentives for Noyce scholars to teach in high-needs schools.

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

SECTION 1. ROBERT NOYCE TEACHER SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

    Section 10 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 
2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (c)(4), by striking ``Service required 
        under this paragraph shall be performed in a high-need local 
        educational agency.'';
            (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end a new paragraph 
        as follows:
            ``(5) Exception.--The period of service obligation under 
        paragraph (4) shall be reduced by 1 year for scholarship 
        recipients whose service is performed in a high-need local 
        educational agency. The Director shall establish and maintain a 
        central clearinghouse of information on teaching opportunities 
        available in high-need local educational agencies throughout 
        the United States, which shall be made available to individuals 
        having a service obligation under this section.''; and
            (3) by amending subsection (h), to read as follows:
    ``(h) Matching Requirement.--An institution of higher education 
receiving a grant under this section shall provide, from non-Federal 
sources, an amount equal to 30 percent of the amount of the grant 
(which may be provided in cash or in-kind) to carry out the activities 
supported by the grant.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS***
I, Kenneth J. Cichocki, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Home Interiors &Gifts, Inc. (the “Registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the Registrant andhave:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls or procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this annual report based on suchevaluation;  c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theRegistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to affect, the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial reporting,to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: March 22, 2004                                                       /s/ KENNETH J. CICHOCKI   Kenneth J. Cichocki   *Chief Financial Officer *
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1150

CHRISTOPHER BERNARD JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus DESMINE SARDIN, President of Liberty Funding; PERRY S. LUTHI, SR.; LUTHI MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.; CAROLINA TAX SERVICE, Carolina Tax Service, Incorporated; LUTHI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; LIBERTY FUNDING; GENERAL FUNDING; PERRY S. LUTHI, JR.; MARTHA PACE; LORI MURPHY; CAROL A. SIMPSON; IRA HANDY; HANDY MOISTURE & PEST CONTROL; PETE PETERSON; RICK DOE, of Luthi Construction; RON PLATT; SONNY NINAN, of Rhino Realty; MARSHA PLATT; MICHAEL DOE; DEE DEE DOE; KIM DOE, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate Judge. (6:06-cv-00049-PMD)
Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 28, 2006
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Bernard Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Christopher Bernard Jones seeks to appeal an order entered by a magistrate judge denying his motions for appointment of counsel and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000), a magistrate judge may enter a final order directly appealable to the court of appeals upon consent of all parties. Otherwise, under § 636(b), an appeal of an order entered by a magistrate judge lies with the district court. Absent an express adoption, modification, or rejection of the magistrate judge’s ruling by the district court, the ruling is generally not reviewable by the court of appeals. See Reynaga v. Cammisa , 971 F.2d 414, 416-18 (9th Cir. 1992). In this case, we find nothing in the record showing that the parties agreed to have Jones’ complaint decided by the magistrate judge. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 21

Private Media Group, Inc. Subsidiaries



|                                    |  |                       
|----------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                  |  | Place of Incorporation
|Cine Craft, Ltd.                    |  | GIBRALTAR             
|Coldfair Holdings Limited           |  | CYPRUS                
|Fraserside Holdings Ltd.            |  | CYPRUS                
|Peach Entertainment Distribution AB |  | SWEDEN                
|Milcap Media Group S.L.             |  | SPAIN                 
|Private Media Group Services S.L.   |  | SPAIN                 
|Private Benelux B.V.                |  | THE NETHERLANDS       
|Private France SAS                  |  | FRANCE                
|Private North America, Ltd.         |  | U.S. (California)     
|Barbuda B.V.                        |  | THE NETHERLANDS       
|Ceresland S.L.                      |  | SPAIN                 
|Private Media Group Canada, Inc.    |  | CANADA                
|ThinkForward, Inc.                  |  | U.S. (California)     
|GreenCine, Inc.                     |  | U.S. (Delaware)       
|Mamas LLC                          |  | U.S. (Delaware)       
|GameLink LLC                        |  | U.S. (Delaware)       
|eLine LLC                           |  | U.S. (Delaware)       
|Sureflix Digital Distribution, Inc. |  | U.S. (Delaware)       
|Entruphema, Inc.                    |  | CANADA
ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 05-14-00139-CR OFFENSE: 29.03

Reginald Doney Thompson v. The

STYLE: stateofTexas COUNTY: Dallas

OM-/5"

Of1-/5

0^-/5

6V-/5

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: Criminal District Court No. 5

DATE: 12/15/2014 Publish: NO TC CASE #: F-07.24608-L

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Q%%~)S

Reginald Doney Thompson v. The •4f

STYLE: State of Texas

Pfto -SE Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: g7y/^^/^/r

JUDGE: f.Q* UyLA^tt^-.

CCA#:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

0*6

Am

O J2 -/S

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
BancOne Mortgage
Capital Markets, LLC
TX1-2498
1717 Main Street Suite 1400
Dallas TX  75201-2498

Tel 800 887 6781
www.bomcm.com

(logo)

February 22, 1999

PricewaterhouseCoopers
2001 Ross Avenue
Suite 1800
Dallas, Texas 75201-2997

As of and for the year  ended  December  31,  1998,  Banc One  Mortgage  Capital
Markets,  LLC ("BOMCM")  has complied in all material  respects with the minimum
servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers  Association of America's
Uniform Single  Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP")  except,  for
commercial loan and multifamily loan servicing,  minimum servicing standards V.4
and VI. 1., which the MBA has interpreted as inapplicable to such servicing.) As
of and for this same period,  BOMCM had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and
omissions policy in the amount of $25 million.

Edgar L. Smith
Chief Operating Officer
# Official Journal C 97A/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2009.097.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 97A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5228 April 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2009.097.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 97A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5228 April 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | |
| 2009/C 097A/01 | Notice to readers | s5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

2009/C 097A/01

Notice to readers

s5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2009/C 097A/02 | Reserve lists — Open competitions | 1 |
| 2009/C 097A/03 | Reserve lists — Open competition EPSO/AD/99/07 — Administrators (AD 5) — In the buildings sector | 3 |
| 2009/C 097A/04 | Reserve lists — Open competitions | 5 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2009/C 097A/02

Reserve lists — Open competitions

1

2009/C 097A/03

Reserve lists — Open competition EPSO/AD/99/07 — Administrators (AD 5) — In the buildings sector

3

2009/C 097A/04

Reserve lists — Open competitions

5

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2009/C 097A/05 | REVIEW OF ‘COMPETITION’ C A OJs | s3 |

2009/C 097A/05

REVIEW OF ‘COMPETITION’ C A OJs

s3

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Opinion issued February 20, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00199-CV

———————————

PACCAR, INC., CLEVELAND MACK SALES, INC. D/B/A 

PERFORMANCE KENWORTH, INC., AND CATERPILLAR, INC. 

Appellants

V.

HO HO HO EXPRESS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 61st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2008-24797

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Cleveland Mack Sales, Inc. d/b/a Performance Kenworth Inc. 

and Caterpillar, Inc., have settled their disputes with appellee Ho Ho Ho Express, 

Inc. and move to dismiss their appeal and vacate the trial court’s judgment. In 
2

addition, appellee Ho Ho Ho Express, Inc. and appellant PACCAR, Inc. have 

settled their dispute and jointly move to dismiss PACCAR, Inc.’s appeal. We 

grant both motions.

All disputes in this case having been settled, at the parties’ request, we 

vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case.

Jane Bland

Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0658 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. COLTER HELTON HENRY,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 13 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 6 2023

09/06/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0658
#### James DAUGHTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 81483.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 24, 2003.

John K. Tucci, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.

John M. Morris III, Breck K. Burgess, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.

Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Daughty (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15 after an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant claims that both his trial counsel and appellate counsel denied him effective assistance of counsel. Movant alleges that his trial counselors were ineffective because they misled and pressured him to waive his right to a jury trial. Further, Movant claims his appellate attorney was ineffective for failing to raise a sufficiency of the evidence argument in his appellate brief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find the motion court’s judgment was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); *State v. Driver,*912 S.W.2d 52, 54 (Mo. banc 1995). An extended opinion reciting the facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment of the motion court. Rule 84.16(b).
**EXHIBIT
      31.1**





**CERTIFICATION**





I,
      Mark
      L. Kay, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of StrikeForce Technologies,
      Inc.;





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
      report;





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





4.
      I am
      responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
      (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
      and we have:





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





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





c)
      disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
      quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
      affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





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





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





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




*/s/
      Mark L. Kay*





*Mark
      L. Kay*


*Chief
      Executive Officer*




*June
      28, 2006*
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PAUL GEORGE SNEAD

No. 6822SC292

(Filed 18 September 1968)

Appeal by defendant from *McLaughlin, J.,*January-February 1968 Session, Iredell Superior Court.

Defendant was charged in three separate bills of indictment with breaking and entering and larceny and in two separate bills with assault on ■ a female. The charges of assault on a female were *nol prossed.*Defendant, through his counsel, entered a plea of guilty to each of the other charges. From the judgment in each case entered by the court, defendant appealed. Upon a finding of indigency, the court appointed counsel and ordered that transcript of the trial proceedings be furnished defendant without charge.

*Fred G. Chamblee for defendant appellant.*

*Attorney General T. W. Bruton by Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the State appellee.*

Morris, J.

Appellant assigns as error (1) the consideration by the court of defendant’s confession without adequate or proper determination that the same was freely and voluntarily given, and (2) the sentences imposed constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the circumstances.

Counsel for appellant candidly states in his brief that he has carefully investigated and finds no support for his assignments of error but asks that the Court review the record. This we have done.

We find, upon a careful examination of the record and. the . evidence, that evidence as to defendant’s signed waiver of rights and *408confession was admitted in each instance without objection and that defendant himself, on questioning by the court, stated that he was guilty of the charges but that the two others he implicated in his confession were not; that his statement was true as to him but not true as to the others.

The sentences imposed were within the statutory limit.

Defendant was represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty, reiterated his guilt in open court, and received sentences within the limits provided by statute.

No error.

Mallabd, C.J., and Campbell, J., concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Kylee Dawn FORD, Defendant.

No. COA18-535

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: January 15, 2019

DISMISSED.