alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HOWARD S. JONES, Respondent, v. ROBERT L. MOORES and Another, Appellants.

*Mechanic’s lien*— acceptance *of a note for labor and materials.*

The acceptance from the owner of a building of his promissory note for labor and material does not deprive the material-man and mechanic of his lien, where the debt becomes due and the lien is filed within the ninety days given by the statute.

Appeal by the defendants, Robert L. Moores and Charles A. Le Quesne, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of Rings county on the Jth day of September, 1892, on a decision at Special Term in favor of the plaintiff, in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for $625, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*George F.*Alexander, for the appellants.

*Salter 8.*Olarh, for the respondent.

Barnard, P. J.:

The plaintiff agreed with the defendants to furnish embossed, cut and ground glass to be set and furnished in the defendants’ houses. By the terms of the agreement, when the work and materials were properly set and furnished, the defendants were to give their promissory note for the same three months from the date thereof. On the 20th of January, 1891, the work was completed to the satisfaction of defendants, and was accepted by them. On the 12th of *110January, 1891, the defendants gave the plaintiff a note for $500 at three months from date, and on the 21st of January, 1891, they gave the plaintiff another note for $125, being for the balance due on the contract. Both notes were protested. On the 17th day of April, 1891, the plaintiff filed a lien on the-premises. The only question presented is whether the giving and acceptance of the notes by the terms of the contract destroyed the lien. It was held by the Court of Appeals in *Happy*v. *Mosher*(48 N. Y., 313),'that the taking of notes of a third person did not affect the lien, except to defer its enforcement. It was held by the same court in the case of *Mott*v. *Lansing*(57 N. Y., 112), that work done upon a vessel upon the personal credit of the owner, does not affect the right to a lien. That a lienor might give credit, provided the lien was filed within the statute time. Both these cases were approved in *King*v. *Greenway*(71 N. Y., 413). In this case the lien was filed within the ninety days given by statute, and the debt became due within that time.

The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JOSE ABEL CABRERA-SOMOSA, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0127 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2008-006195-001

The Honorable Michael D. Gordon, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Jose Abel Cabrera-Somosa, San Luis

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge Jon W. Thompson, and Judge 

Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 1-4-2018
STATE v. CABRERA-SOMOSA

Decision of the Court

2

P E R C U R I A M:

¶1 Petitioner Jose Cabrera-Somosa seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the petitioner’s third 

successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the 

petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not shown any abuse of discretion. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 5, 2015

d0602

Order 

Clerk

June 5, 2015

150661

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150661

COA: 318654

Saginaw CC: 12-037836-FH

STEPHANIE WHITE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 21, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). 

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order 

addressing whether there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support a 

determination that the arresting officer was lawfully in the defendant’s house when she 

resisted or obstructed his attempts to arrest her son. The parties should not submit mere 

restatements of their application papers.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and Prosecuting Attorneys 

Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups 

interested in the determination of the issue presented in this case may move the Court for 

permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,114,449
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,430,790
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (69,163)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,510,984
<PP&E>                                       6,514,898
<DEPRECIATION>                               (489,468)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              55,180,251
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,866,372
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,157
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,479,616
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                55,180,251
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,254,713
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,962,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,994
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (69,163)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (82,837)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,156,007
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (439,282)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            716,725
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   716,725
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 27772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11795]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR05-17-006]


DCP Guadelupe Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 11, 2010.
    Take notice that on May 7, 2010, DCP Guadalupe Pipeline, LLC, 
(formerly Duke Energy Guadalupe Pipeline, Inc.) filed revised rates 
based on the Commission's Order on Rehearing issued on April 15, 2010, 
in Docket Nos. PR05-17-000 and PR05-17-005.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests 
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment 
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all 
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#60262532232f0e0c090e05331510100f121420060512034e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d4b485f4e4263616463685e787d7d627f794d6b687f6e236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Tuesday, May 18, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11795 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
FILED 

Affl f 3 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

NANCY MAYER WHITTIN 

U.S. DISTRICT cg~?/I' Cl.ERIc 

Shannon L. Clark, ) 

) 

Petitioner, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

) 

The Honorable William C. Sherril, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

Civil Action No·09 U677 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter is before the Court on review of petitioner's pro se complaint and application 

to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be 

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring dismissal ofa prisoner's complaint upon a 

determination that the complaint, among other grounds, fails to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted). 

Petitioner, a Florida state prisoner, has submitted a document captioned "Emergency 

Petition for Eloignment for Order to Release Petitioner's Third Amended Complaint from the 

Control, Support and Responsibility of Respondents." His supporting paragraphs shed no light 

on the basis of the petition, the relief sought and the petitioner's entitlement thereto. The 

complaint therefore will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 1 

Date: March ~, 2009 

ig~pl5 Uni ed States District Judge 

1 A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Exhibit 32

REX Stores Corporation 
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officers of REX Stores Corporation (the Company) hereby certify, to their knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2008 which this
certificate accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

/s/ Stuart A. RoseStuart A. Rose

/s/ Douglas L. BruggemanDouglas L. Bruggeman

Dated: September 9, 2008

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,233
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,325
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,160,211
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,172,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,068,119
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          826,334
<BONDS>                                      5,877,928
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,093,375)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,068,119
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               236,645
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  163,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             318,077
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (395,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (395,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (395,400)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (33.72)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

 

**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 AnnualReport of Broadwing Communications Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theperiod ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas L. Schilling, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

 
| (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 |

 

 
| /s/ Thomas  L. Schilling |   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|
| Thomas L.  Schilling     |   |
| Chief Financial Officer  |   |
| March 31,  2003          |   |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 24747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10523]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-71,414]


TATA Technologies Incorporated, a Subsidiary of TATA Technologies 
Limited, Formally Known as INCAT, Novi, MI; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on January 21, 2010, applicable to workers of Tata Technologies 
Incorporated, a subsidiary of TATA Technologies Limited, Novi, 
Michigan. The notice was published in the Federal Register on March 
5th, 2010 (75 FR 10322).
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in activities related to providing engineering design and product 
lifecycle management.
    Information reports that before April 2009, Tata Technologies 
Incorporated, a subsidiary of Tata Technologies Limited, was formally 
known as INCAT. Some workers separated from employment at the subject 
firm had their wages reported under two separate unemployment insurance 
(UI) tax accounts under the names Tata Technologies Incorporated, a 
subsidiary of Tata Technologies Limited, formally known as INCAT.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by an 
affiliated vendor acquiring engineering design and product lifecycle 
management in India.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-71,414 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Tata Technologies Incorporated, a subsidiary of 
Tata Technologies Limited, formerly known as INCAT, Novi, Michigan, 
who became totally or partially separated from employment on or 
after June 25, 2008, through January 21, 2012, and all workers in 
the group threatened with total or partial separation from 
employment on date of certification through two years from the date 
of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of April 2010.
 Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-10523 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### Daniel A. McWilliams and Albert F. McWilliams, as Administrators, etc., of Charles McWilliams, Deceased, Respondents, v. Charles E. McWilliams and Adolph Dexheimer, as Surviving Executors and Trustees under the Last Will and Testament of Daniel McWilliams, Deceased, and Individually, and Others, Appellants.

Appeal from an order entered on the 31st day of May, 1911, granting a-motion for a commission to take the testimony of the witness upon oral questions.

Per Curiam:

The order should be modified by requiring as a condition of granting the .jpen commission that the plaintiffs pay to the defendants the sum of seventy-five dollars (instead of twenty-two dollars) as and for their reasonable expenses upon the execution of said commission. As so modified affirmed, without costs.

Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Clarke, Scott and Dowling, JJ.

Order modified as directed in opinion, and as so modified affirmed; without costs. Order to be settled on notice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         740,263
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  17,287,214
<ALLOWANCES>                                   520,000
<INVENTORY>                                    38,453
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               18,689,802
<PP&E>                                         3,637,881
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,045,488
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 24,780,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          19,099,848
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          4,303,213
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       119,380
<OTHER-SE>                                     (722,870)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   24,780,799
<SALES>                                        7,434,828
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               28,688,374
<CGS>                                          5,890,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  27,081,777
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               191,212
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               320,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             191,212
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,415,385
<INCOME-TAX>                                   581,683
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            833,702
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   833,702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .16



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2658 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2658

 To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their parts, for use 
         in the manufacture of digital versatile discs (DVDs).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2000

 Mr. Coverdell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their parts, for use 
         in the manufacture of digital versatile discs (DVDs).

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.84.16    Bonding           Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     machines,                                                               31/03            ''
                     whether                                                                                   .
                     imported as an
                     entirety, or in
                     components, or
                     parts thereof,
                     for use in the
                     manufacture of
                     digital
                     versatile discs
                     (DVDs)
                     (provided for
                     in subheading
                     8479.89.97)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```