alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re Will of H. A. NICHOLSON.

(Filed 22 February, 1933.)

Appeal and Error J e—

In this caveat proceeding the answer of witness on question of mental capacity *is held*not to constitute reversible error in the light of the whole record.

Appeal by propounders from *Hill, Special Judge,*at October Term, 1932, of PasquotaNK. ■

Issue of *devisavit vel non,*raised by a caveat to the will of H. A. Nicholson, late of Pasquotank County, based upon alleged mental incapacity.

The principal exception is to the following testimony of Mrs. Annie Nicholson, distant relative of the deceased:

“Q. Now, Mrs. Nicholson, from your observation of him have you an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to his mental capacity, to know what property he had, who his relatives were, what claims they had upon him, and the scope and effect of making a will in December, 1930? Answer: No, I do not think so.”

“Q. You have or have not that opinion? Answer: I have an opinion.” “Q. What is that opinion ? Answer: My opinion is that he was not capable of making a will. I do not think he had the mind to make a will. That is my opinion.”

Motion to strike out the answer; overruled; exception.

Prom a verdict and judgment in favor of the caveators, the propound-ers appeal, assigning errors.

*LeBoy & Meekins and M. B. Simpson for caveators.*

*George J. Spence and McMullan & UcMuTlan for propounders.*

*224Stacy, O. J.

Propounders contend that under *S. v. Hauser,*202 N. C., 738, 164 S. E., 457, *S. v. Journegan,*185 N. C., 700, 117 S. E., 27, *In re Peterson,*136 N. C., 13, 48 S. E., 561, *Crowell v. Kirk,*14 N. C., 355, and other decisions to like effect, the evidence of Mrs. Nicholson invaded the province of the jury, and, for this reason, should have been excluded.

In reply, the caveators say the answer of the witness, even if somewhat objectionable, cannot be held for reversible error when taken in connection with the question propounded and the whole record. *In re Will of Creecy,*190 N. C., 301, 129 S. E., 822; *In re Brooch's Will,*172 N. C., 520, 90 S. E., 681. This was the view of the trial court, and we are disposed to uphold the ruling. *Whitaker v. Hamilton,*126 N. C., 465, 35 S. E., 815.

No error.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    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 NASB Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David H. Hancock, Chief Executive 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 result of operations of
the Company.


May 10, 2006               By: /s/ David H. Hancock
                               David H. Hancock
                               Chairman and Chief
                                 Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to NASB Financial, Inc. and will be retained by NASB
Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.


This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein , and not for
any other purpose.

<Page>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 250 (Friday, December 29, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31489]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4


Rules of Practice Amendments; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Correction to final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the final regulations, 
which were published Friday, July 21, 1995 (60 FR 37746).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald S. Clark, Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 
20580, 202-326-2514.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Federal Trade Commission amended its Rules of Practice to adapt 
them to the Federal Trade Commission Act Amendments of 1994. This 
action conformed the Commission's Rules of Practice to certain 
statutory changes and provided guidance to the public.

Need for Correction

    A correction to the final regulations published on July 21, 1995 is 
needed in order to ensure that the Code of Federal Regulations 
correctly sets forth the amended version of Section 4.7(f) of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice.

Correction of Publication

    Therefore, the final rule published on July 21, 1995 (60 FR 37746) 
is corrected as follows:
    On page 37748, third column, the first sentence of paragraph (f) in 
section 4.7 is corrected to read as follows:


Sec. 4.7  Ex parte communications.

* * * * *
    (f) The prohibitions of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply 
to a communication occasioned by and concerning a nonadjudicative 
function of the Commission, including such functions as the initiation, 
conduct, or disposition of a separate investigation, the issuance of a 
complaint, or the initiation of a rulemaking or other proceeding, 
whether or not it involves a party already in an adjudicative 
proceeding; preparations for judicial review of a Commission order; a 
proceeding outside the scope of Sec. 3.2, including a matter in state 
or federal court or before another governmental agency; a 
nonadjudicative function of the Commission, including but not limited 
to an obligation under Sec. 4.11 or a communication with Congress; or 
the disposition of a consent settlement under Sec. 3.25 concerning some 
or all of the charges involved in a complaint and executed by some or 
all respondents.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31489 Filed 12-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
#### In the Matter of Joseph Hayden et al., Respondents, v Thomas Tallman, as Trustee of Village of Hamburg, et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[773 NYS2d 324]

Appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Edward A. Rath, Jr., J.), entered November 15, 2002. The judgment declared, after a hearing, that the parcel at issue is a public park.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We note, however, that petitioners were only required to establish their entitlement to the relief sought by a preponderance of the evidence and not, as respondents contend, by clear and convincing evidence. Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2
       a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b.
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: May 16, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Joseph P. HannanJoseph P. HannanSenior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A1314. BARRON et al. v. EMORY HEALTHCARE, INC.

This is a renewal action filed by David M. Barron and Susan Koch Barron

against Emory Healthcare, Inc. The Barrons file this appeal from a trial court order

granting Emory’s motion for summary judgment.

In deciding Emory’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court considered

the parties’ briefs, the arguments of counsel, and the “underlying record.” She

referenced “records produced during discovery” and “testimony adduced during

depositions.” It is apparent that the trial court was referring to the underlying record

in the Barrons’ dismissed original action, including depositions and discovery; the

parties cited this material in their summary judgment filings. Very little of this

material is included in the appellate record before us.

1

Absent the materials considered by the trial court, we cannot conduct

meaningful appellate review of the order granting Emory’s motion for summary

judgment. See Moore v. Food Associates, 210 Ga. App. 780, 781 (437 SE2d 832)

(1993) (“It is well established that on appeal of a grant of summary judgment, the

appellate court must determine whether the trial court erred in concluding that no

genuine issue of material fact remains and that the party was entitled to judgment as

a matter of law. This requires a de novo review of the evidence.”)

So we REMAND this appeal to the state court for completion of the record.

1We previously granted the Barrons’motion to supplement the record on appeal

with the transcript of the deposition of Emily McMaster taken in the original case, but

this is the only deposition in the appellate record before us. 

December 08, 2021
When the record has been completed, the clerk of the state court is directed to

transmit the record to this court for re-docketing. The Barrons’ motion for an

extension of time to file their appellate brief and Emory’s motion to dismiss the

Barrons’ appeal are DENIED AS MOOT.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/08/2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,554,117
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,186,473
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 73,137,842
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            92,383,063
<PP&E>                                      18,307,240
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             114,721,883
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       73,095,687
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,453
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,904,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,983,147
<SALES>                                    163,593,559
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           163,593,559
<CGS>                                       95,809,818
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               95,809,818
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            74,972,013
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,741,320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (11,122,344)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (321,192)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (10,801,152)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                     (631,418)
<NET-INCOME>                               (11,432,570)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.63)
        

</TABLE>
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3470 

To provide for the implementation of certain trafficking in contracting 

provisions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 11 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 2022 

Mr. LANKFORD (for himself and Ms. ERNST) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for the implementation of certain trafficking in 

contracting provisions, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘End Human Traf5 ficking in Government Contracts Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF TRAFFICKING IN CON7 TRACTING PROVISIONS. 

8 (a) REQUIREMENT TO REFER VIOLATIONS TO AGEN9 CY SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT OFFICIAL.—Section 

10 1704(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3470 IS

1 Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239; 22 U.S.C. 

2 7104b(c)(1)) is amended— 

3 (1) by inserting ‘‘refer the matter to the agency 

4 suspension and debarment official and’’ before ‘‘con5 sider taking one of the following actions’’; and 

6 (2) by striking subparagraph (G). 

7 (b) REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF TRAFFICKING

8 IN CONTRACTING PROVISIONS.—Not later than 90 days 

9 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director 

10 of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit to 

11 Congress a report on implementation of title XVII of the 

12 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

13 (Public Law 112–239; 126 Stat. 2092). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Office of the Under Secretary (Personnel and Readiness), DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

      ( print page 6843)    

# SUMMARY:

                        The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, as codified at 50 U.S.C. App. § 3951, prohibits a landlord from evicting a Service member (or the Service member's family) from a residence during a period of military service except by court order. The law as originally passed by Congress applied to dwellings with monthly rents of $2,400 or less. The law requires the Department of Defense to adjust this amount annually to reflect inflation and to publish the new amount in the                         **Federal Register**                        . We have applied the inflation index required by the statute. The maximum monthly rental amount for 50 U.S.C. App. § 3951 (a)(1)(A)(ii) as of January 1, 2016, will be $3,451.20.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         January 1, 2016.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lt Col Reggie D. Yager, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, (703) 571-9301.

Dated: February 3, 2016.

Aaron Siegel,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2016-02445 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
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 NASB Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Rhonda Nyhus, 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 result of operations of
the Company.


February 13, 2004           By:  /s/ Rhonda Nyhus
                                 Rhonda Nyhus
                                 Vice President and Treasurer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to NASB Financial, Inc. and will be retained by NASB
Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.



This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein , and not for any
other purpose.

<Page>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132400 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132400 

 COA: 271732 

Genesee CC: 03-012789-FH 

JONATHAN MICHAEL HILL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of January 29, 2007, the application for leave to appeal the August 25, 

2006 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People 

v Harper (Docket No. 130988). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on 

July 26, 2007, 479 Mich 599 (2007), the application is again considered, and it is 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed 

by this Court. 

l1022 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

October 29, 2007 

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

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

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

| Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Reduce benefits by 5 percent for those newly eligible for benefits in 2010 and later. |
|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified August 26, 2009 |
### Proposed Provision: E3.17. Beginning in 2025, increase the taxable maximum by twice the rate of increase in the national Average Wage Index, but never by less than 3 percent. Provide benefit credit for earnings up to the revised taxable maximum levels.

back
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

B

7

-1.70% -4.20% 0.58% 0.73% -1.12% 

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2008 Trustees Report Office of the Chief A

July 16, 2008

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Retirement Age

Proposed Provision: Shorten the hiatus in the normal retirement age (start increasing to ag62 in 2009) and then increase the NRA by 2 months every year until the NRA reaches age 

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this 

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.020.0

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expe

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 

Year

Percent

Present law With this p
Exhibit 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  registration
statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-88442, 33-99196, 33-94974, 333-65799, 333-36159,
333-82418,  and  333-82416)  and on Form S-3 (File  Nos.  333-90017,  333-76614,
333-92174  and  333-102334)  of Data Systems & Software Inc. of our report dated
April 12, 2005, relating to the financial  statements of Data Systems & Software
Inc. which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ Kesselman & Kesselman
Certified Public Accountants
A member of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited


Tel Aviv, Israel
April 14, 2005