alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harton *v.*Harton, Appellant.

*Appeals*— Rule 6, *sec. 2*— Bill *of exceptions*— Certificate—Points.

Where the assignments of error on an appeal are to answers to points the appeal'will be quashed where no bill of exceptions has been taken, nor certificate of the judge filed, as required by rule 6, sec. 2. An indorsement on plaintiff’s points or on opinion, refusing new trial, that bill was “sealed for defendants in all generally,” is not sufficient.

*493July 13, 1905:

Argued May 3, 1905.

Appeal, No. 235, April T., 1905, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Oct T., 1905, No. 814, on verdict for plaintiff in case of John E. Hartón v. William E. Hartón, Contractor, and William E. Hildebrand, owner, with notice to Frank P. Howley.

Before Beaver, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.

Appeal quashed.

Motion to quash appeal.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

*Errors assigned*were answers to plaintiff’s points.

*Thomas B. Alcorn,*for appellant.

*W. E. Thomson,*with him. *O. Q. Brock*and *Erank Thomson,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

Our Rule 6 is simple and easily understood. The requirements of its second paragraph are specific. It is as follows :

> “ 2. In all cases to which a bill of exceptions at common law is applicable, it is strongly recommended that such a bill be taken in the established form. Where this is not done, a certificate signed by the judge, in the following form, will be required, viz.:

> “ Foregoing notes of testimony, with the exceptions taken by counsel during the trial to the rejection or admission thereof, and the charge, with the exceptions thereto, have been examined by me, and are hereby approved and ordered to be filed. -Judge.”

We are asked to quash this appeal for the reason that no exceptions were taken at the trial to the answers to points which constitute the substance of the questions involved. The motion is based upon substantial grounds. It is alleged, however, by the appellant that, although no formal exceptions appear upon the record, it does appear, by the folio wing indorsement, that they were recognized as having been taken, “Bill sealed for defendants in all, generally ” which is signed by the judge. The answer is made that this bill was sealed after *494the trial and verdict. It is indorsed upon the plaintiff’s points, which were all affirmed, but is not dated. Whenever made, it is in no sense a compliance with our rule. In the absence of a bill of exceptions in regular form, the certificate which is provided for is required. There is no such certificate. The motion to quash must, therefore, be allowed. Bill quashed.
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Mendocino County Resource Advisory Committee will meet June 18, 2010 (RAC) in Willits, California. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Approval of minutes, (2) Handout Discussion, (3) Public Comment, (4) Financial Report, (5) Sub-committees, (6) Matters before the group, (7) Discussion—approval of projects, and (8) Next agenda and meeting date.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on June 18, 2010, from 9 a.m. until 12 noon.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Mendocino County Museum, located at 400 E. Commercial St., Willits, California.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Roberta Hurt, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Covelo Ranger District, 78150 Covelo Road, Covelo, CA 95428. (707) 983-6658; E-mail                        *windmill@willitsonline.com.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff by June 14, 2010. Public comment will have the opportunity to address the committee at the meeting.

Dated: May 10, 2010.

Lee Johnson,

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 2010-11804 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
## NO. 12

- 13

- 00229

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

VALTON P. BUNDY, MIC HELLE

BUNDY AND ALL OTHER

OCCUPANTS OF 15497 W AGON

WHEEL CIRCLE, CHANDL ER,

TEXAS,

APPELLANT

S

V.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS

TRUSTEE FOR THE CERT IFICATE

HOLDERS CWABS, INC. ASSET

BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES

2004

- 13, APPELLEE S §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TE XAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant s have filed a mot ion to dismiss this appeal. In their motion, Appellant s state

that the parties have reached an agreement to settle and compromise their differences

. Therefore,

Appellants no longer wish to pursue the appeal. Appellants have complied with Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1). Accordingly, Appellant s ’ motion to dismiss is granted, and the

appeal is dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2 (a).

Opinion delivered August 20, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( PUBLIS H )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 20, 2014

NO. 12

- 13

- 00229

- CV

VALTON P. BUNDY, MIC HELLE BUNDY AND ALL OTHER

OCCUPANTS OF 15497 W AGON WHEEL CIRCLE, C HANDLER, TEXAS,
Appellant s

V.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE

BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERT IFICATE HOLDERS

CWABS, INC. ASSET BA CKED CERTIFICATES, S ERIES 2004

- 13,
Appellee s

Appeal from the County Court

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 7175)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motio n of the Appellant s to

dismiss the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED

and DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed,

and that the decision be certified to the court bel ow for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle , J

.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tower Bancorp, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Franklin T. Klink, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)   The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  Franklin T. Klink, III |
|--------|----------------------------------|
|   | Chief Financial Officer          |
|   | November 7, 2008            |

 

1

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 26, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00214

- CV

Amin Q. ALI and Salma Ali

, Appellant s

v.

Nizarshah MOHAMMAD

, Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CI10486

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The Court has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration En Banc and the

motion is DENIED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNE SS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 26th day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<CIK>                            0001031003
<NAME>                           MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              FEB-06-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-26-1997
<CASH>                                                0
<SECURITIES>                                309,278,400
<RECEIVABLES>                                 6,185,568
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            315,463,968
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              315,463,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         6,185,568
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                 300,000,000
<COMMON>                                      9,278,400
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                315,463,968
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             22,268,045
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              22,268,045
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          22,268,045
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 22,268,045
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        


</TABLE>
94th Congress, 2d Session Senate Document No. 94-245

VETO MESSAGE—S. 2447

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

RETURNING

WITHOUT MY SIGNATURE. S. 2447, THE BILL ENTITLED “TO

AMEND TITLE 4 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE TO MAKE IT

CLEAR THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS MAY NOT, FOR PURPOSES OF STATE INCOME TAX LAWS, BE TREATED AS RESIDENTS OF ANY STATES OTHER THAN THE STATE FROM

WHICH THEY WERE ELECTED"

A u g u st 3, 1976.—Ordered to be printed

o7-011 O

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1976
To the Senate of the United States:

I am returning today without my signature S. 2447, which would exempt Members of Congress from certain local income taxes. This bill provides that a Member of Congress need not pay the income tax levied by a state or municipality in which the Member lives for the purpose of attending Congress. Since Virginia and District of Columbia laws already exempt from payment of their income taxes Members living in such jurisdictions only while attending Congress, S. 2447 would serve principally to prevent Maryland from levying such taxes on Members of Congress. However, it is one thing for a taxing jurisdiction voluntarily to ex­ empt Members of Congress from its income tax laws and quite another for Congress to mandate a Federal exemption on a state income tax system. I believe such Federal interference is particularly objection­ able where, as is the case in Maryland, a portion of the income tax is collected on behalf of counties to pay for local public services which all residents use and enjoy. It should also be noted that this bill would in effect freeze the exemptions now provided by Virginia and the Distinct of Columbia, and they would then be powerless to change their tax laws in this regard. Since this bill benefits a narrow and special class of persons it vio­ lates. in my view, the basic concept of equity and fairness by creating a special tax exemption for Members of Congress while other citizens who are required to take up temporary residence in the Washington area—or elsewhere—do not enjoy a similar privilege. Finally, those who assert that there is a Constitutional infirmity in applying a state income tax to Members while attending Congress may present the issue to the courts for resolution. As the end of this session of Congress approaches, the American people would be better served if Congress would direct its attention to the important laws that should be passed this year—to cut taxes and spending; to expand catastrophic health care programs; to limit court ordered school busing; to attack crime and drugs; and to address many other important matters of concent to the American people— rather than by enacting legislation such as S. 2447. For these reasons. I am returning 8. 2447 and asking Congress to reconsider this bill.

The White H ouse. August 1976.

(in)

Gerald R. F ord.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ALVIN HOLLIS,

Petitioner

v.

C&R LAUNDRY SERVICES LLC 

(WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD),

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 427 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of March, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                 (In thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                               Years Ended December 31,
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          2002            2001             2000              1999           1998
                                        --------       -----------      -----------       ---------       --------
<S>                                     <C>            <C>              <C>               <C>             <C>
Coverage deficiency.....................$(59,704)      $(6,669,561)     $(3,080,794)      $(287,992)      $(54,048)
                                        ========       ===========      ===========       =========       ========

</TABLE>

No computation of the ratio earnings to fixed charges is presented as we had a
loss from continuing operations for all periods presented. We need additional
earnings, as indicated by the coverage deficiency for each of the periods
presented above to achieve a ratio of earnings to fixed charges of 1.0X.
****


**EXHIBIT
31.2**




**CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**








I, John
Hickey, certify that:





(1)  I have
reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Apex Resources Group, Inc. (the
“Company”);





(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 Company as of, and for,
the periods presented in this Quarterly Report;





(4)  The
Company’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company 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 Company, including its consolidated subsidiary, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





(b)  Evaluated
the effectiveness of the Company’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
Quarterly Report based on such evaluation; and





(c)  Disclosed
in this Quarterly Report any change in the Company’s internal controls over
financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting; and





(5)  The
Company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s
auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons
fulfilling the equivalent function):





(a)  All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the Company’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 Company’s internal controls over financial
reporting.








Date:
      May 13, 2005
    By:
    /s/
      John M.
      HickeyJohn
      M. Hickey, Principal Financial Officer
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00021

- CV

$2,442.00 C URRENT M ONEY OF THE

U NITED S TATES

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 362nd District

Court

of Denton County (18

- 8118

- 362)

July 25, 2019

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant James Crowder Jr. shall pay all of the costs

of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By __ /s/ Wade Birdwell

__________________ Justice Wade Birdwell
Summary of HMEC Non-Employee Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.10 
 Summary of Horace Mann Educators Corporation Non-Employee Director Compensation 
  

			
	Compensation Element	  	Non-Employee Director
Compensation
	Board Chairman Annual Retainer	  	$75,000
	Board Member Annual Retainer	  	$25,000
	Committee Chair Annual Retainers	  	 $10,000 Audit Committee
 $ 6,000 Compensation Committee
 $ 4,000 all other
Committees

	Share-based Compensation	  	 Fair value on the date of the respective awards is used to
determine the number of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) awarded.
 $40,000 in RSUs upon joining the Board and an additional $40,000 in RSUs if joining within 6
months after the prior Annual Shareholder Meeting or an additional $20,000 in RSUs if joining more than 6 months after the prior Annual Shareholder Meeting but before the next Annual Shareholder Meeting.
 An annual award of $40,000 in RSUs thereafter following the Annual Shareholder Meeting.
 All awards have a 1 year vesting period.

	Board Meeting Fee	  	$1,500 per meeting
	Committee Meeting Fees	  	 $1,500 for Audit Committee members
 $2,500 for Audit Committee Chair
 $1,000 for all other
meetings

	Deferred Fees Match	  	Directors electing to defer cash compensation into Common Stock equivalent units (“CSUs”)
receive a 25% match in additional CSUs.
	Basic Group Term Life Insurance	  	Premium for $10,000 face amount
	Business Travel Accident Insurance        	  	Premium for $100,000 coverage

 Retainer fees are paid following the Annual Shareholder Meeting of each year. The retainer fees are prorated to
the extent that a non-employee director joins the Board after the Annual Shareholder Meeting. 
 Last revision date: May 28, 2009 
  

 1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40814

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL MANCILLAS-ZARATE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-98-CR-71-1

- - - - - - - - - -

January 6, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Mancillas-Zarate (“Mancillas”) appeals the sentence he

received following his guilty-plea conviction for attempting to

illegally reenter the United States after deportation, in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that the district court erred and

acted in violation of his right to due process by imposing a

sixteen-point enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), for his prior Texas felony conviction for

possession of cocaine.
No. 98-40814

-2-

Because he raises these arguments for the first time on

appeal, they are reviewed for plain error. See United States v.

Spires, 79 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir. 1996); see also United States

v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947, 950-51 (5th Cir. 1994). Mancillas has not

demonstrated any error, plain or otherwise, arising out of the

district court’s application of 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d

691, 694 (5th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Pearson, 910

F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1991).

Mancillas also argues that due process requires the Government

to prove the aggravated felony sentencing enhancement by proof

greater than a preponderance of the evidence, either beyond a

reasonable doubt or by clear and convincing evidence. However,

Mancillas does not challenge the existence of his prior conviction

or the Government’s ability to prove that conviction under a

heightened standard of proof and thus has failed to demonstrate

that the district court’s finding that the conviction was

sufficiently proved, irrespective of what evidentiary burden was

required, was clear error. See United States v. Palmer, 122 F.3d

215, 222 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.