alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Commercial Bank of Kentucky *vs.*Richard Slater, adm’r, etc., (2d. case.)

Dec. 24, 1874.

Action wiU not lie against Administrator on a claim not Presented to Commissioners. — The complaint in this action presents substantially the same state of facts presented in the other case between the same parties, decided at this term, except that in this case the plaintiff, instead of applying- to the probate court for the allowance of its claim, has brought this suit against the administrator, alleging that there were never any assets of Heylin’s estate in Pennsylvania, out of which its judgment could be collected, but that said estate in Minnesota, now in the hands or under the control of the defendant, is solvent and sufficient to pay all the debts of said estate; but that defendant has refused to pay or recognize said judgment, though requested, etc. *Held,*that the plaintiff, not having exhibited its claim to the commissioners, was forever barred from recovering the same, by § 14. ch. 53, Gen. Stat., and that this action is also forbidden by § 50 of the same chapter.

Tbis action was brought in the district court for Ramsey county upon the same claim involved in the next preceding case between the same parties, the facts alleged in the complaint in this action being the same that are stated in the opinion in that case. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained by *Willcin,*J., and the plaintiff appealed.

*JR. B. Galusha*and *I. V. JD. Heard,*for appellant.

*H. J. Horn*and *Davis*& *O'Brien,*for respondent.

Berry, J.

The complaint in this action presents substantially the same state of facts presented in the other case *175between the same parties, decided at this term *{ante*p. 172,) -except that in this case, the plaintiff, instead of applying to the probate court for the allowance of its claim, has brought this suit against the administrator, alleging that there were never any assets of Heylin’s estate in Pennsylvania, out of which its judgment could be collected, but that said estate in Minnesota, now in the hands or under the control of the •defendant, is solvent and sufficient to pay all the debts of said estate ; but that defendant has refused to pay or recognize said judgment, though requested, etc.

The defendant’s general demurrer to the complaint, was, in our opinion, properly upheld. The remedy sought in this action being controlled by the *lex fori,*the plaintiff, not having- exhibited its claim to the commissioners, was “ forever barred from recovering ” the same, (in this state at any rate,) by § 14, ch. 53, Gen. Stat.

Section 50 of the same chapter further enacts that ‘‘ in no other case, except such as are expressly provided for in this chapter, shall any action be commenced or prosecuted against an executor or administrator.” The plaintiff does not bring itself within any case so expressly provided for, nor claim to do so, as far as we can discover. The demurrer being supported by both of these provisions of statute, the order sustaining the same is affirmed.
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 June 30, 2006 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: August 22, 2006.  /s/ Thomas Gurkowski _______________________ Thomas Gurkowski (Secretary/Treasurer and CFO)
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.A., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, OFFICE 

OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE 

CURRENCY, Downers Grove, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0408

Issued: November 3, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ERRATUM

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

The Board issued an Order Dismissing Appeal in the above-entitled case on 

October 7, 2021 under Docket No. 21-0408. 

The Board, having duly considered the matter, concludes that the October 7, 2021 order 

was issued erroneously, as it should have dismissed the appeal under Docket No. 21-0089 and not 

under Docket No. 21-0408. Consequently, the October 7, 2021 order must be vacated and the 

corrected order issued. The appeal docketed as No. 21-0408 shall go forward. Accordingly,
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 7, 2021 order of the Board is vacated. 

The corrected order dismissing the appeal under Docket No. 21-0089 is attached and is hereby 

issued.

Issued: November 3, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8160

SENNAYI TEOUME-LESSANE, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. JEFFREY BOLYARD, Acting Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:07-cv-00159-FPS-JES)

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: August 3, 2009

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sennayi Teoume-Lessane, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant United States Attorney, Daniel W. Dickinson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sennayi Teoume-Lessane, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Teoume-Lessane v. Bolyard , No. 5:07-cv00159-FPS-JES (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 17, 2008). We deny TeoumeLessane’s motion for appointment of counsel and deny his motion to expedite as moot. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### CHARLES GASTON, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 7588

March 27, 1975

533 P.2d 464

*Rodlin Goff,*State Public Defender, and *Gary Sheerin,*Deputy Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Larry R. Hicks,*District Attorney, and Kathleen M. Wall, Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Charles Gaston pleaded guilty to battery with the intent to commit rape and to carrying a concealed weapon and was sentenced to a term of seven years in the Nevada State Prison.

*178Gaston’s contention of denial of Ms right to counsel based on being represented by ineffective counsel finds no support in the record on appeal based on the standard set out in Founts v. Warden, 89 Nev. 280, 511 P.2d 111 (1973); see also, Warden v. Lischko, 90 Nev. 221, 523 P.2d 6 (1974); nor does Gaston’s allegation overcome the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing on his petition for post-conviction relief and the presumption that Ms attorney fully discharged Ms duties. Warden v. Lischko, supra; Lundy v. Warden, 89 Nev. 419, 514 P.2d 212 (1973); Smithart v. State, 86 Nev. 925, 478 P.2d 576 (1970).

Gaston’s assertion that he was denied an evidentiary hearing as to the truth or falsity of an alleged promise by defense counsel that he would be sentenced to no more than five years if he pleaded guilty to lesser charges is unfounded. The record clearly indicates that Gaston was given an evidentiary hearing on his petition for post-conviction relief in which tMs issue was raised and resolved against him as being unsupported by the evidence. The record further indicates that his guilty pleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered. Armstrong v. Warden, 90 Nev. 8, 518 P.2d 147 (1974).

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FILED FOR THE PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,307
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,977
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              471
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,063
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,082
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,365)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,281
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (151)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,130
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,130
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.38<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.38<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Per share data retroactively gives effect to the Reverse Stock Split
consummated in connection with the Alarmguard Merger on April 15, 1997
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

|   | 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 the                Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                June 18, 2007 | /s/                Fangde Zhang                                    |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               | Fangde                ZhangChief                Executive Officer  |
|                               |                                                               |
|                               | /s/                Mingzhu Zhang                                   |
|                               | Mingzhu                ZhangChief                Financial Officer |

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND TRUST CORPUS OF
PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND THE RELATED CONDENSED
STATEMENTS OF DISTRIBUTABLE INCOME AND CHANGES IN TRUST CORPUS FOR THE
TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,152,992
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,152,992
<PP&E>                                      10,975,216
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,214,277
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,913,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,152,992
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,760,939
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,913,931
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,964,202
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               475,628
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             19,488,574
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         19,488,574
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                19,488,574
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5214 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5214

 To require oil polluters to pay the full cost of oil spills, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2010

 Mr. Holt (for himself, Mr. Pallone, Ms. Kosmas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Meek of 
 Florida, Mr. Hodes, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Inslee, Mrs. Capps, and 
 Mr. Braley of Iowa) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require oil polluters to pay the full cost of oil spills, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act of 
2010''.

SEC. 2. LIMITS ON LIABILITY FOR OFFSHORE FACILITIES.

    Section 1004(a)(3) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 
2704(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``$75,000,000'' and inserting 
``$10,000,000,000''.

SEC. 3. ADVANCE PAYMENTS.

    Section 1012 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(l) Advance Payments.--The President shall promulgate regulations 
that allow advance payments to be made from the Fund to States and 
political subdivisions of States for actions taken to prepare for and 
mitigate substantial threats from the discharge of oil.''.

SEC. 4. OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND.

    (a) Limitations on Expenditures.--Section 9509(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures from the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund) is amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (2);
            (2) by striking ``Expenditures'' and all that follows 
        through ``Amounts in'' and inserting ``Expenditures.--Amounts 
        in''; and
            (3) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (F) as 
        paragraphs (1) through (6), respectively, and indenting 
        appropriately.
    (b) Authority To Borrow.--Section 9509(d) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 (relating to authority to borrow for the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund) is amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (2);
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
            (3) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)--
                    (A) by striking subparagraph (B); and
                    (B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as 
                subparagraph (B).

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on April 
15, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A1 29 7 . SPENCER GI LES v . DANI EL GI LES.

On Decem

ber 2 3
, 2 0 1 4
, t h e t ri al co u rt en tered j u d g m e n t i n fav o r of Dan i el
Gi l es an d ag ai n s t Sp en cer Gi l es

. On Jan u ary 2 3
, 2 0 1 5, Sp en cer G i l es fi l ed a n o t i ce

o f ap p eal

. W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n becau s e t h e ap p eal is u n t i m el y

. A n ot i ce o f ap p eal m u s t
b e fi l ed w i th i n 3 0 d ay s aft er t h e en t ry o f th e t ri al co urt ’ s o rd er. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a).
Th e p ro p er an d t im el y fi l i n g of a n o t i ce o f ap p eal i s an ab s o lu t e req u i rem en t t o co n fer ju ri s d i ct i o n u p o n th i s Co ur t. C ouc h v. Un i t ed Pa

p er wo r ker s In t l

. Un i o n , 2 2 4 Ga. Ap p. 7 2 1 (4 82 SE2 d 7 0 4 ) (1 9 9 7 ). Here, Sp en cer Gi l es fi l ed h i s n ot i ce o f ap p eal 3 1 d ay s aft er t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er was en t ered

. Acco rd i n g ly
, we l ack ju ri s di ct i o n t o co n s i d er

t h i s ap p eal , an d i t i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 03/26/2015 March 26, 2015
#### A MINOR, Appellant, v. JUVENILE DEPARTMENT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, Respondent.

No. 11667

June 4, 1980

611 P.2d 624

*Puccinelli & Puccinelli,*Elko, for Appellant.

*Thomas L. Stringfleld,*District Attorney, Elko County, and *Richard F. Jost,*Deputy, for Respondent.

OPINION ON REHEARING

*Per Curiam:*

In A Minor v. Juvenile Department, 96 Nev. 332, 608 P.2d 509 (1980), we held that the accomplice corroboration rule was applicable to juvenile delinquency proceedings. Rehearing was granted for the limited purpose of deciding whether that application is foreclosed by NRS 169.025.1

*486The Legislature has dictated, by enacting NRS 169.025, that our criminal procedure statutes, such as NRS 175.291, are not *required*to be observed in juvenile proceedings. Manifestly, the Legislature has not forbidden their application to juvenile matters. The Legislature has declared, in NRS 62.193(4) and (5), that an adjudication of juvenile delinquency may only be based upon competent, material, relevant, and probative evidence. In our previous decision in this case, we held only that the accomplice corroboration rule was incorporated in the general evidentiary standards imposed by NRS 62.193(4) and (5), independent of the operation of NRS 175.291. Our decision was not foreclosed by NRS 169.025. Nor have we been presented with any compelling reason to alter our previous opinion.2

Accordingly, we adhere to our previous decision in this case, as clarified here, and affirm the judgment of the district court.3

1

 NRS 169.025 provides:

> “This Title [which includes NRS 175.291, a statutory statement of the *486accomplice corroboration rule] governs the procedure in the courts of the State of Nevada and before magistrates in all criminal proceedings, but does not apply to proceedings against children under Chapter 62 of NRS.”

2

 We specifically reject the contrary result reached by one of our sister states. *See*In re Mitchell P., 587 P.2d 1144 (Cal. 1978).

3

 Thus we have no occasion to reach the constitutional question of whether declining to require corroboration of accomplice testimony in juvenile proceedings would be a denial of equal protection. *See*Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975).