alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### W. W. HORTON v. ANNIE E. DAVIS, ROBERT R. DAVIS, PAUL DAVIS and wife, MRS. PAUL DAVIS

No. 7118SC256

(Filed 23 June 1971)

Appeal and error § 39— failure to docket record in apt time

Appeal is dismissed for failure to docket the record on appeal within the 90-day period allowed by Court of Appeals Rule No. 5, no order having been entered extending the time for docketing.

Appeal from *Martin, Special Judge,*September and October 1970 Sessions, Superior Court of Guilford County.

This is an action in ejectment tried by the court without a jury. The court found facts and entered judgment against the plaintiff, who appealed.

*Julian C. Franklin for plaintiff appellant.*

*Morgan, Byerly, Post and Herring, by J. V. Morgan and J. W. Clontz for defendant appellees.*

MORRIS, Judge.

Counsel for plaintiff was diligent in obtaining an order extending the time within which appellant was required to serve his case on appeal. However, no motion was made nor order entered for an extension of the time for docketing the record on appeal. The judgment was entered on 23 October 1970. The record on appeal was not docketed in this Court until 19 February 1971 — well beyond the 90-day period provided by Rule 5, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals. For failure to comply with the Rules of this Court, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Brock and Hedrick concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of OptimumBank Holdings, Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB Amendment No. 1 for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Albert J. Finch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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.

To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.









|      |                 |  |     |                                          | 
|----- | --------------- |  | --- | ---------------------------------------- | 
|Date: | August 15, 2007 |  | By: | /s/ ALBERTJ. FINCH                       | 
|      |                 |  |     | Albert J. Finch, Chief Executive Officer |
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Emanuel N. Hilario, Chief Financial Officer, in connection with the
Report on Form 10-Q of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report), hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 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 results of operations of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ EMANUEL N. HILARIO 
|Emanuel N. Hilario     
|Chief Financial Officer

Dated: November 8, 2006
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

                         CERTIFICATE OF NURESCELL INC.
              CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Lawrence Shatsoff, President and Chief Financial Officer of
Nurescell Inc. (the "Company"), do hereby certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

         (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No.1) of the Company
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003, 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.

Dated: November 7, 2003                             /s/ LAWRENCE SHATSOFF
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   President and Chief Financial
                                                   Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Robert L. Cavnar, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Form 10-K of Mission Resources Corporation;

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

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this 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 report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are 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 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
          the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting; and

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

     (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.


March 8, 2004


/s/ Robert L. Canvar
--------------------
Robert L. Cavnar
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
**CERTIFICATIONS*** **Exhibit 31.1**I, Francis I. duPont, III, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of First National Bancshares, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:    a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;    b)[This paragraph intentionally left blank]    c)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and    d)disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and  5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe 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 thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and    b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.   Date: August 15, 2005 /s/ *Francis I. duPont, III*  Title: Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5249 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5249

 To provide amortization authority in certain situations, for purposes 
  of capital calculation under the Financial Institutions Examination 
        Council's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 2010

  Mr. Perlmutter (for himself, Mr. Coffman of Colorado, Ms. Markey of 
  Colorado, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Chandler, and Mr. Davis of 
  Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide amortization authority in certain situations, for purposes 
  of capital calculation under the Financial Institutions Examination 
        Council's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Capital Access for Main Street Act 
of 2010''.

SEC. 2. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE LOAN LOSS AMORTIZATION.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of capital calculation under the 
Financial Institutions Examination Council's Consolidated Reports of 
Condition and Income, an insured depository institution with assets of 
less than $10,000,000,000 may choose to amortize any loss or write-
down, on a quarterly straight-line basis over the 7-year period 
beginning with the month in which such loss or write-down occurs, 
incurred with respect to--
            (1) a loan secured by commercial real estate; or
            (2) other real estate owned.
    (b) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall apply 
with respect to capital calculations under Consolidated Reports of 
Condition and Income made for losses and write-downs referred to in 
subsection (a) that occur during the 3-year period beginning on the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
            (1) Insured depository institution.--The term ``insured 
        depository institution'' shall have the meaning given such term 
        under section 3(c)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
        U.S.C. 1813(c)(2)).
            (2) Other real estate owned.--The term ``other real estate 
        owned'' shall have the meaning given such term under section 
        34.81 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations.
                                 <all>
```
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5274 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the requirements for 

verifying a small business concern owned and controlled by a veteran. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2010 

Mr. ROSKAM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the requirements for verifying a small business concern owned and 

controlled by a veteran. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR 

4 VERIFYING SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN 

5 OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY A VETERAN. 

6 Subsection (f) of section 8127 of title 38, United 

7 States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘(6)’’ and in9 serting ‘‘(7)’’; and 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5274 IH

1 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

2 paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(7) In determining eligibility for inclusion in the 

4 database, the Secretary may not consider the following: 

5 ‘‘(A) The work schedule of the veteran owner of 

6 a small business concern. 

7 ‘‘(B) Whether the small business concern sells 

8 or otherwise conducts business with respect to more 

9 than one product line.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

I.O., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, 

ORLANDO VA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM,

Orlando, FL, Employer 

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1593

Issued: March 31, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On September 9, 2020 appellant through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 9, 2020

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 20-1593.

In a letter dated and received March 5, 2021, counsel requested that the appeal be 

dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that counsel’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 20-1593 is dismissed.

Issued: March 31, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
#### BOB CLEVELAND, aka BOB L. CLEVELAND: DOROTHY CLEVELAND: DON BIRD and ROE CORPORATIONS, Appellants, v. MORRIS HOPPER and ALICE HOPPER, Respondents.

No. 7261

March 29, 1974

520 P.2d 614

*Embry & Shaner,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant Don Bird.

*Raymond E. Sutton,*of Las Vegas, for Appellants Bob and Dorothy Cleveland.

*■Pursel & Pursel, Ltd.,*of Las Vegas, for Respondents.

*135OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In March of 1967, respondent Morris and Alice Hopper entered into a partnership arrangement with Bob and Dorothy Cleveland, known as M & B Charcoal Company. To secure their capital contribution to the partnership, respondents delivered title to a 1960 International diesel truck to Bob Cleveland, who thereafter pledged the vehicle to Bird as security for a personal loan. When Cleveland defaulted, Bird sold the truck in satisfaction of the debt.

The lower court found that the pledge was made without the knowledge or consent of the respondents and was not in furtherance of the partnership business. The court further found that appellant Bird knew that the truck was an asset of the partnership and that the title to the truck was vested in the Hoppers.

The trial court awarded damages to the respondents for conversion of their truck including consequential damages for loss of business. The principal ground for the decision is that Bob Cleveland was without authority to pledge the truck as security for a loan and that Bird was without ground to believe that Cleveland had such authority.

NRS 87.090(2) provides that “an act of a partner which is not apparently for the carrying on of the business of the partnership in the usual way does not bind the partnership unless authorized by the other partners.” The lower court concluded as a matter of law that “. . .no title or interest as against Plaintiffs was conveyed by the said pledge.” NRS 87.090 (3) (a).1 There has been no showing by the appellant that the judgment of the trial court was clearly erroneous or that it was *136not based upon substantial evidence. B & C Enterprises v. Utter, 88 Nev. 433, 498 P.2d 1327 (1972).

Even assuming that the truck was a partnership asset which could be pledged, the lower court held that Bird’s purported security interest was ineffectual under the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in Nevada. We are unable to decide whether the appellant held a valid security interest under the facts of this case because this court has not been favored with a transcript of the proceedings in the district court, nor has the appellant submitted a settled and approved statement of the evidence or proceedings. Turner v. Staggs, 89 Nev. 230, 510 P.2d 879 (1973);NRAP 10(c) (e).

Respondents are allowed their costs on appeal and attorney fees in the amount of $300.00. NRAP 38(b).

Affirmed.

1

NRS 87.090(3) Unless authorized by the other partners or unless they have abandoned the business, one or more but less than all the partners have no authority to:

(a) Assign the partnership property in trust for creditors or on the assignee’s promise to pay the debts of the partnership. . . .
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60881-60882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20806]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Ex Parte No. 656 (Sub-No. 1)]


Investigation Into the Practices of the National Classification 
Committee

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Request for comments from interested persons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Board is commencing an investigation into the practices of 
the National Classification Committee (NCC), which administers the 
motor carrier classification system for its motor carrier members 
pursuant to an agreement approved by the Board under 49 U.S.C. 13703. 
The purpose of this

[[Page 60882]]

investigation is to develop a more thorough record regarding charges of 
abuse of market power by NCC, in its practices generally, and 
particularly with its action changing the classification of lighting 
products and fixtures in 2004.

DATES: Opening comments may be filed by persons opposing renewal of 
NCC's bureau agreement by November 18, 2005. NCC may file reply 
comments by December 8, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Any filing submitted in this proceeding must refer to STB Ex 
Parte No. 656 (Sub-No. 1) and must be submitted either via the Board's 
e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-
filing should comply with the instructions found on the Board's http://www.stb.dot.gov Web site, at the ``E-FILING'' link. Any person 
submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an 
original and 10 paper copies of the filing (and also an IBM-compatible 
floppy disk with any textual submission in any version of either 
Microsoft Word or WordPerfect) to: Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. Because all comments will be 
posted to the Board's Web site, persons filing them with the Board need 
not serve them on other participants but must furnish a hard copy on 
request to any participant.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar (202) 565-1609. 
(Federal Information Relay Service for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-
8339.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information on this proceeding 
appears in the Board's decision in this proceeding. This decision will 
be published on the Board's Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov, under 
docket number STB Ex Parte No. 656 (Sub-No. 1). Board filings, 
decisions, and notices are available at this site.
    This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the 
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

    Decided: October 12, 2005.

    By the Board, Chairman Nober, Vice Chairman Buttrey, and 
Commissioner Mulvey.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-20806 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P