alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 23881.

Department Two.

November 21, 1932.]

#### The National Association of Creditors, Inc., *Appellant,*v. Herb O’Shea, Respondent.1

*0. 8. Galbreath,*for appellant.

*Neal & Bonneville,*for respondent.

Reported in 15 P. (2d) 1114.

Steinert, J.

— This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Pierce county affirming a judgment entered by a justice of the peace, wherein an action brought by the plaintiff was dismissed and an attorney’s fee of twenty-five dollars was assessed against the plaintiff.

The National Association of Creditors, Inc., instituted an action against the defendant, upon an assigned claim, in Tacoma precinct, Pierce county. The defendant appeared specially, and moved to dismiss the action upon the ground that he was a resident of *201the city of Seattle, in King county. In the affidavit supporting the motion, the defendant recited that the place of his residence was a city of more than one thousand inhabitants, and that he was, therefore, entitled to have the action dismissed in accordance with the provisions of chapter 75, Laws of 1929, p. 127, relating to justice courts. The motion was granted, and a judgment was entered dismissing the action and assesssing the amount of the attorney’s fee. TJpon an appeal to the superior court, the judgment of the justice of the peace was in all respects affirmed. Plaintiff has now appealed to this court.

The appellant, by a series of assignments, first attacks the constitutionality of the 1929 act, above referred to, on various grounds. Those questions, however, have already been authoritatively determined by this court in a case wherein this very appellant was a party, and wherein the same argument as here made was strenuously advanced by it. *National Association of Creditors v. Pendleton,*158 Wash. 137, 290 Pac. 987. We do not feel called upon, therefore, to discuss those questions further, but by simple reference to the former decision indicate our adherence to the views therein expressed.

The appellant, by further assignment, contends that the above act was not intended to apply to the facts involved in this case. This raises merely a question of the construction and applicability of the act as affected by other sections of the statute, and is fully met by the objection that the amount involved is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court, under Rem. Comp. Stat., § 1. Inasmuch as we have determined that the constitutional objections raised by the appellant to the validity of the 1929 act are not well founded, our inquiry is ended. *Henry v. Thur-*
      *202
      *ston County,*31 Wash. 638, 72 Pac. 488; *Henderson v. Farley,*152 Wash. 327, 329, 277 Pac. 852.

The judgment is affirmed.

Tolman, C. J., Main, Herman, and Beals, JJ., concur.
### NUMBER 13

- 1 4

- 00 384

- C R



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

JASON CHAVEZ

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

of Nueces County, Texas.



## ORDER TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This cause is currently before the Court on appellant's sixth motion for extension

of time to file the brief. The reporter’s record was filed on September 16, 2014 , and

a ppellant ’ s brief was originally due to be filed thirty days thereafter. See Tex. R. App. P.

38.6(a). T his Court has previously granted appellant extension s totaling 165 days to file2

the brief, and appellant now seeks an additiona l 21 days, until May 4, 2015 , to file the

brief.

The Co urt GRANTS appellant’s sixth unopposed motion for extension to file the

brief and ORDERS the Honorable Ira Z. Miller to file the brief on or before May 4, 2015

.

The Court looks with disfavor on the delay caused by counsel’s failure to timely file a brief

in this matter. No further extensions will be granted absent exigent circumstances. If

counsel fails to file the brief within the specified period of time, the Court will act

appropriately to ensur e that appellant's rights are protected. See id. R. 38.8(b)(4).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

22 nd day of April

, 201 5

.
EXHIBIT 32



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 Amendment No. 1 of LogSearch, Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James Durward, Principal Executive Officer, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: October 6, 2006

By:  /s/ James Durward

Name:  James Durward

Title:  President, CFO, Treasurer, Chief Accounting Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6644

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LEVY SAMUEL STEPHEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-96-197-5-01-F, CA-99-397-5-F)

Submitted: September 8, 2003 Decided: September 25, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Levy Samuel Stephen, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Levy Samuel Stephen seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

We vacated and remanded a previous order, finding the district

court erred by summarily denying Stephen’s claim that he received

ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon remand, the district court

held an evidentiary hearing and again denied relief. We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stephen has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040

(2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

        KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned, being a
director or officer, or both, of SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., a New York corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby constitute and appoint ARTHUR C. MARTINEZ, ALAN J.
LACY, MICHAEL D. LEVIN, JAMES A. BLANDA and ALICE M. PETERSON, with full power 
to each of them to act alone, as the true and lawful attorneys and agents of the
undersigned, with full power of substitution and resubstitution to each of said
attorneys, to execute, file and deliver any and all instruments and to do any 
and all acts and things which said attorneys and agents, or any of them, deem
advisable to enable the Company to comply with the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and any requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission
in respect thereto, relating to annual reports on Form 10-K, including
specifically, but without limitation of the general authority hereby granted, 
the power and authority to sign his or her name in the name and on behalf of the
Company or as a director or officer, or both, of the Company, as indicated below
opposite his or her signature, to annual reports on Form 10-K or any amendment 
or papers supplemental thereto; and each of the undersigned does hereby fully 
ratify and confirm all that said attorneys and agents, or any of them, or the 
substitute of any of them, shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has subscribed these
presents, as of this 12th day of March, 1997.

NAME                              TITLE

/S/Arthur C. Martinez             Director, Chairman of the  
Arthur C. Martinez                 Board of Directors, President  
                                    and Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)

/S/Alan J. Lacy                   Executive Vice President and 
Alan J. Lacy                        Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial Officer)

/S/James A. Blanda                Vice President and Controller
James A. Blanda                     (Principal Accounting Officer)


/S/Hall Adams, Jr.                Director
Hall Adams, Jr.

/S/Warren L. Batts                Director
Warren L. Batts

/S/Alston D. Correll, Jr.         Director
Alston D. Correll, Jr.

/S/Michael A. Miles               Director
Michael A. Miles

/S/Richard C. Notebaert           Director
Richard C. Notebaert

/S/Nancy C. Reynolds              Director
Nancy C. Reynolds

/S/Clarence B. Rogers, Jr.        Director
Clarence B. Rogers, Jr.

/S/Donald H. Rumsfeld             Director
Donald H. Rumsfeld

/S/Dorothy A. Terrell             Director
Dorothy A. Terrell
#### DONALD W. GILFILLAN, Appellant, v. MARY BERNICE PALMER, Respondent.

No. 7586

March 27, 1975

533 P.2d 456

*Stewart & Horton, Ltd.,*and *Raymond B. Little,*of Reno, for Appellant.

*Sanford, Sanford, Fahrenkopf & Mousel*and M. *Craig Haase,*of Reno, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In this action by an attorney against his former client to recover attorney’s fees claimed to be due, the trial court found that all legal fees owing the attorney and his associated California counsel were paid by the client’s husband to California counsel pursuant to the terms of a property settlement agreement obligating the husband to pay such fees, and that the client’s obligation thereby was discharged. The record supports that finding.

Affirmed.
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73
          - [DA 05-2691, MB Docket No. 05-122, RM-11198]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; dismissal.

# SUMMARY:

                        At Media Division dismisses the Petition for Rule Making filed by Good Karma Broadcasting, LLC, proposing the reallotment of Channel 263A from Columbus to Monona, Wisconsin, and the modification of Station WTLX(FM)'s license accordingly.                         *See*709 FR 17046, April 4, 2005. It is not conducive to the efficient processing of petitions for rule making for the Commission to accept an ungranted construction permit application as a “backfill” to replace the prospective loss of a sole local service of a community.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon P. McDonald, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 05-122, adopted October 12, 2005, and released October 14, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or                     *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.*                     This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission, is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,                     *see*5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because the proposed rule was dismissed.                

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 05-21553 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### WILLIAM WOODBURN, Executor of the Estate of George B. Thatcher, Also Known as Geo. B. Thatcher, Deceased, and GEORGE KERR, Appellants, *v.*LILLIE A. PESI and ADALINE HANSEN, Respondents.

No. 3965

December 8, 1958.

332 P.2d 999.

*356
      *John S. Belford,*of Reno, for Appellants.

*Grant Sawyer,*of Elko, for Respondents.

OPINION

By the Court,

Eather, J.:

Appellants were original locators of five placer mining claims in Copper Canyon Mining District, Lander County. Respondents, contending that appellants failed to perform annual assessment work upon the claims, relocated the same and brought the action below to quiet title thereto. A decree in their favor was obtained.

Appellants have appealed upon the ground that there is no proof that respondents, in locating the claims, had performed “not less than $20 worth of labor upon [each *357of] the claim [s] for the development thereof.” NRS 517.100.

(1) There is no direct evidence that the value of the location work performed on the five claims was not less than $100. There was testimony that one Pesi worked eight days and that one Coulter worked seven days, and that they made an excavation eight feet square and four feet deep on each of the claims. To sustain the statutory requirement, that labor must have been worth at least $6.66 a day for the 15 days. While, generally, judicial notice may not be taken of the value of labor performed, there are extremes to which the rule may not extend.

It is a matter of common knowledge that even the lowest class of mine labor in this state is worth in excess of $6.66 per day. Direct testimony to such effect was not necessary to support the court’s judgment. Hopkins v. Paradise Heights Fruit Growers’ Assn., 58 Mont. 404, 193 P. 389; Perata v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 111 Cal. App.2d 378, 244 P.2d 940; Nylund v. Madsen, 94 Cal. App. 441, 271 P. 374. The conclusion is reinforced by official reports to the governor filed by the state labor commissioner pursuant to NRS 607.080.

(2) There is no testimony to the effect that the work done tended towards the development of the claims. Courts, however, are not disposed to substitute their own retrospective judgments for the prospective judgments of the locators in such respect, Love v. Mt. Oddie United Mines Co., 43 Nev. 61, 181 P. 133, 43 Nev. 66, 184 P. 921, particularly where there is no suggestion that the location work as described was not performed in good faith for the purpose of such development, and in anticipation that it would result in such development.

Affirmed with costs.

Badt, C. J., and Merrill, J., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U. S. C.SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Amendment No.1 on Form10-QSB/A Quarterly Report of Vistula Communications Services, Inc.(the “Company”) forthe period ended June 30, 2005,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, George R. Vaughn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to mybest knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, adopted pursuantto §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)              the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2)              the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ GEORGE R. VAUGHN    |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | George R. Vaughn        |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

Dated: January 30, 2006

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to VistulaCommunications Services, Inc. and will be retained by VistulaCommunications Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Allstate Insurance Company *v.*Elizabeth Hersey Howe

*Terence A. Zemetis,*in support of the petition.

*Edward Czepiga II,*in opposition.

Decided June 17, 1993

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 132 (AC 11311), is denied.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-10-000021409-MAY-201308:13 AM
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Thomas Gurkowski, Secretary/Treasurer and CFO of Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company), do 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 my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on 10QSB of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: May 31, 2006.



/s/ Thomas Gurkowski

_______________________

Thomas Gurkowski

(Secretary/Treasurer and CFO)
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008, I, Tim T. Hart, Chief Financial Officer of Maxwell Technologies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008,
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. at the dates indicated.

This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                  |  |  |  |                                                                                             
|----------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  | 
|February 20, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    TIM T. HART                                                                          
|                  |  |  |  | Tim T. Hart                                                                                 
|                  |  |  |  | Vice President, Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Maxwell Technologies,
Inc. and will be retained by Maxwell Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q FOR
THE NINE MONTHS  ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCES
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>            409,415
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>             3,090
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>               3,066
<EQUITIES>                        1,889
<MORTGAGE>                       10,016
<REAL-ESTATE>                    13,838
<TOTAL-INVEST>                  680,975
<CASH>                           11,583
<RECOVER-REINSURE>               18,064
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>           34,659
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,316,780
<POLICY-LOSSES>                 133,861
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>               2,104
<POLICY-OTHER>                  533,700
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>             9,631
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                          2,381
<OTHER-SE>                      149,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,316,780
<PREMIUMS>                        7,604
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>              38,084
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                    0
<OTHER-INCOME>                    2,266
<BENEFITS>                       23,642
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>       1,676
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>             12,682
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  13,780
<INCOME-TAX>                      5,057
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               8,723
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                      8,723
<EPS-BASIC>                        0.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0.99
<RESERVE-OPEN>                        0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                   0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                     0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                    0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                      0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                       0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>               0



</TABLE>