alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Henry Bernhard v. James W. Brown.

*Practice—BUI of Exceptions—Insufficient Record—Due Bill for Flour —Rehearing—Rule—Stipulation.*

1. In an action upon a due bill calling for a certain quantity of flour, the record in several respects being defective, this court declines to interfere with a judgment for plaintiff.

2. This court will not consider a cause upon its merits, where the record fails to show an exception to the judgment of the trial court, or a motion for a new trial entered.

3. Neither such omissions, nor the rule of this court touching rehearings can be waived by stipulation.

[Opinion filed June 15, 1889.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Effingham County; the Hon. William C. Jones, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. E. N. Rinehart and S. F. Gilmore, for appellant.

Mr. William B. Wright, for appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

The record in this case is not certified to by the circuit clerk nor does the bill of exceptions contain the due bills and receipts upon which the claim for judgment is based. We have before us in this case a record not certified to by the clerk, a bill of exceptions certified to by the judge, with nothing but the bill of exceptions to show the judgment. So far as the judgment is shown there was no exception to the same or motion for new trial. With the record in this condition, we must affirm the judgment without considering the merits of the cause.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*386[On petition for rehearing. Opinion filed August 29, 1SS9.]

*Per Guriam.*

This petition for rehearing comes too late under the rules of this court, to be considered. Counsel for appellee, however, seeks to avoid the rule of court by consenting to a rehearing. Consent of counsel for appellant and appellee can not, however, avoid the fact appearing on this record, that the judgment of the Circuit Court was not excepted to, nor a motion for new trial entered. One or the other must be shown to give us jurisdiction to hear and determine a case on its merits. That can not be waived by counsel, nor can we recognize the right of counsel to waive the rules adopted by this court with reference to rehearing. This motion for a rehearing is dismissed.

*Motion dismissed.*
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                           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 Online Vacation Center Holdings Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Edward B. Rudner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date: August 12, 2008


/s/ Edward B. Rudner
--------------------
Edward B. Rudner
Chief Financial Officer
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Level of OASDI Contribution and Benefit Base | Description of Proposed Provision:      Beginning in 2009, make all earnings subject to the payroll tax and credit them for benefit purposes |
|----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                              |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2008 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified July 16, 2008 |
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council

          - [Docket No. AS16-02]

# AGENCY:

Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

*Description:*                     In accordance with Section 1104 (b) of Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) will meet in closed session:                

*Location:*                     Federal Reserve Board—International Square location, 1850 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006.                

*Date:*                     February 16, 2016.                

*Time:*                     Immediately following the ASC open session.                

*Status:*                     Closed.                

*Matters to be Considered:*                     State Preliminary Investigation.                

 Dated: February 4, 2016.

James R. Park,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2016-02628 Filed 2-9-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6700-01-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 18, 2016

No. 04-15-00771-CR

John David GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-05-075-CRW

Honorable Russell H. Wilson, Judge Presiding

\ORDER

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the appellant’s brief is granted. We order 

appellant to file the appellant’s brief by May 16, 2016.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 18th day of April, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov |  | **Search**  |
|------------------------|--|------------------|

| Actuarial Publications | Summary of Provisions That Would Change the Social Security ProgramUpdated May 3, 2006   |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Solvency Provisions | Description of Proposed Provisions:              Cost-of-Living Adjustment |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of         the 2005 Trustees Report*

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map |
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Actuarial Publications | Summary of Provisions That Would Change the Social Security Program |
|------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Solvency Provisions | Description of Proposed Provisions:               Provisions Affecting Retirement Age |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of         the 2008 Trustees Report*

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified March 31, 2009 |
**
**EXHIBIT 32**

**Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2023 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust. 

 
  Argent Trust Company,  Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty TrustApril 1, 2024  By /S/ NANCY WILLIS   Nancy Willis   Director of Royalty Trust Services**
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3461]



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

HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
National Institutes of Health


 Division of Research Grants; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
Division of Research Grants Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Purpose/Agenda: To review individual grant applications.
    Name of SEP: Behavioral and Neurosciences.
    Date: February 17, 1995.
    Time: 11:00 a.m.
    Place: Georgetown Inn, Washington, DC.
    Contact Person: Dr. Carole Jelsema, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 5333 Westbard Ave., Room 319B, Bethesda, MD 20892; 
(301) 594-7311.

    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. Applications 
and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the applications 
and/or proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the grant review cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Nos. 93.306, 
93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 
93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 6, 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-3461 Filed 2-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3706 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3706

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To provide for the application of certain provisions of the Secure 
 Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 for fiscal 
                               year 2021.

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

SECTION 1. COUNTY ELECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 UNDER THE SECURE RURAL 
              SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 2000.

    Sections 102(b)(1)(D), 102(d)(1)(F), and 102(d)(3)(D) of the Secure 
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 
7112(b)(1)(D), 7112(d)(1)(F), 7112(d)(3)(D)) shall be applied for 
fiscal year 2021.

            Passed the Senate February 17, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3706

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To provide for the application of certain provisions of the Secure 
 Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 for fiscal 
                               year 2021.
```
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP16-302-000]

                    On January 21, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. RP16-302-000, pursuant to section 5 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717d (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and reasonableness of Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC's (Columbia Gulf) currently effective tariff rates. The Commission's order directs Columbia Gulf to file a full cost and revenue study within 75 days of the issuance of the order.                     *Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC,*                     154 FERC ¶ 61,027 (2016).                

Dated: January 21, 2016.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2016-01798 Filed 2-1-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
News      - Press Releases
      - Newsletters
      - Videos
      - Podcasts
      -  Resources          - Annual Reports
        - Public Information Pamphlets
        - Fact Sheets
        - Storymaps
        - SRBC in the News 

Home ** About **News ** SRBC In the News...

# SRBC In The News....

SRBC efforts, research and staff are making headlines:

## 2022 SRBC In The News Archive
#### JOHN A. WILLIS and Wife, NORA WILLIS, v. HENRY WILLIS.

(Filed 21 September, 1955.)

1. Evidence § 40—

Parol evidence *held*competent to show that the actual consideration for a deed to two lots was an agreement of the grantee to construct a house on each lot and to pay to grantors, so long as either of them lived, the rental from one of the houses.

2. Frauds, Statute of, § 12—

Plaintiffs conveyed to defendant two lots under an agreement that defendant should construct a house on each lot and pay to plaintiffs the rental value from one of the houses. *Held:*The statute of frauds does not apply to the executed contract. G.S. 22-2.

Winborne and Higgins, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Appeal by defendant from *Fountain, Special Judge,*May Term, 1955, of Pitt.

Civil action to recover alleged consideration for land conveyed by plaintiffs to defendant.

Plaintiffs, by proper deed, conveyed two vacant lots to defendant. Defendant paid no consideration therefor at or prior to the delivery of the deed.

Plaintiffs alleged that the consideration was defendant’s agreement to build a house on each lot, to be rented, and to pay over to plaintiffs, so long as plaintiffs or either of them lived, the rental from one of the houses; that defendant constructed the two houses; that each was rented for $50.00 per month, beginning 1 June, 1954; that defendant has failed and refused to pay over the rents from one of the houses as agreed; and that plaintiffs were entitled to recover from defendant $50.00 per month from 1 June, 1954.

*598Defendant denied that he made the agreement alleged by plaintiffs, averring that the conveyance was a deed of gift; and defendant pleaded the statute of frauds, G.S. 22-2.

Upon issues arising on these pleadings, the jury found for plaintiffs. Judgment for plaintiffs was entered on the verdict. Defendant appealed.

*Lewis & Bouse for plaintiffs, appellees.*

*C. W. Beaman and K. A. Pittman for defendant, appellant.*

Per Cueiam.

The determinative issue, whether defendant agreed to pay plaintiffs for the two lots as alleged, was resolved by the jury in plaintiffs’ favor. Parol evidence was competent to show the actual consideration for the deed. *Pate v. Gaitley,*183 N.C. 262, 111 S.E. 339. The statute of frauds, G.S. 22-2, does not apply to an executed contract, such as that here involved. *Keith Bros. v. Kennedy,*194 N.C. 784, 140 S.E. 721; *Baucom v. Bank,*203 N.C. 825, 167 S.E. 72. We find no prejudicial error in the conduct of the trial.

No error.

WinboRNE and Higgins, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAVIER HERRERA-CASTANEDA,

Petitioner,

 v.

JEFF B. SESSIONS, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-72489

Agency No. A095-723-057

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 14, 2017**

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Javier Herrera-Castaneda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to 

reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 22 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-72489 

Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Herrera-Castaneda’s motion 

to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than two years after his final order 

of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Herrera-Castaneda did not 

demonstrate his motion came within any statutory or regulatory exception to the 

filing deadline, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), (iv); 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(c)(3).

Herrera-Castaneda contends the BIA did not address his contention 

regarding equitable tolling. Although his motion to reopen uses the term equitable 

tolling, his request also refers to sua sponte reopening, uses the standard for sua 

sponte reopening instead of discussing tolling factors, and cites to authority 

regarding sua sponte reopening. Because the BIA’s order does address sua sponte 

reopening, remand is not warranted.

In light of this decision, we need not address Herrera-Castaneda’s remaining 

contentions regarding the merits of his motion to reopen or eligibility for 

cancellation of removal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          89,600
<SECURITIES>                                    83,700
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               207,500
<PP&E>                                         884,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 120,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 975,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,600
<BONDS>                                        463,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     399,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   975,900
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               274,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  187,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             52,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.11
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

July 10, 2018

No. 04

- 16

- 00491

- CV

Sam LAJZEROWICZ

, Appellant

v.

Estelita LAJZEROWICZ

, Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006

- CI

- 16638 Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellant ’ s motion for extension of time to file motion for en banc reconsideration is hereby GRAN TED. Time is extended to July 18 , 2018.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 10th day of July, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court