alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### G. W. BRADDY v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM et al.

(Filed 2 July, 1931.)

Mandamus A b — Mandamus lies only to enforce clear legal right.

Mandamus lies only to enforce a clear legal right, and the writ will be denied when the application therefor fails to show this right on the part of the plaintiff demanding it.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Finley, J.,*at Chambers in Winston-Salem, 1 August, 1930. From Eobsyth.

Application for writ of mandamus to require tbe respondents to issue to tbe plaintiff a building permit to erect a filling station on a lot owned by him in tbe city of Winston-Salem.

From an order denying application for writ of mandamus and dismissing the action, plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

*George*TF. *Braddy for plaintiff.*

*Parris & Deal for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.

Plaintiff assails tbe validity of tbe city ordinance which forbids tbe erection of a filling station on bis lot. While tbe matter was pending, and before bearing in tbe Superior Court, another ordinance was adopted which is also pleaded in bar of plaintiff’s right to tbe remedy sought. Without undertaking a minute analysis of these ordinances as applicable to plaintiff’s lot, which would serve no useful purpose as a precedent or otherwise, suffice it to say tbe application for writ of mandamus was properly denied for want of a clear showing of right on tbe part of tbe plaintiff to demand it. *Hayes v. Benton,*193 N. C., 379, 137 S. E., 169. Mandamus lies only to enforce a clear legal right. *Cody v. Barrett,*200 N. C., 43, 156 S. E., 146; *Umstead v. Board of Elections,*192 N. C., 139, 134 S. E., 409; *Person v. Doughton,*186 N. C., 723, 120 S. E., 481. In some respects, tbe case of *Refining Co. v. McKernan,*179 N. C., 314, 102 S. E., 505, is not unlike tbe one at bar.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4490]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary of Defense


Department of Defense Wage Committee; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of Public Law 92-463, the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that closed 
meetings of the Department of Defense Wage Committee will be held on 
March 7, 1995; March 14, 1995; March 21, 1995; and March 28, 1995, at 
10 a.m. in Room 800, Hoffman Building #1, Alexandria, Virginia.
    Under the provisions of section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the 
Department of Defense has determined that the meetings meet the 
criteria to close meetings to the public because the matters to be 
considered are related to internal rules and practices of the 
Department of Defense and the detailed wage data considered were 
obtained from officials of private establishments with a guarantee that 
the data will be held in confidence.
    However, members of the public who may wish to do so are invited to 
submit material in writing to the chairman concerning matters believed 
to be deserving of the Committee's attention.
    Additional information concerning the meetings may be obtained by 
writing to the Chairman, Department of Defense Wage Committee, 4000 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000.

    Dated: February 17, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-4490 Filed 2-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
July 15, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ASNAKE T. BELEHU , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00619

- CV V.
CAROLYN LAWNICZAK, I NDIVIDUALLY AND AS I NDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL J. LAWNICZAK
,

DECEASED , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the order in favor of appellee, Carolyn Lawniczak, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Daniel J. Lawniczak
, Deceased, signed, July 2, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the o rder . We order the order of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant Asnake T. Belehu to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       7,271,130
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       3,057,029
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,300,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 50,617,323
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    152,228,259
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,954,427
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             230,556,667
<DEPOSITS>                                 178,562,648
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,248,541
<LONG-TERM>                                 29,042,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,498
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,699,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             230,556,667
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,578,902
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              798,266
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                81,854
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,459,022
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,651,835
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,012,947
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,446,075
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  196,767
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,126,759
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                954,577
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     954,577
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   684,019
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    1.60
<LOANS-NON>                                        975
<LOANS-PAST>                                       346
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    32
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,849,356
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  183,944
<RECOVERIES>                                    92,248
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,954,427
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,954,427
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6277

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KAREEM AKEEM MCMURRIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Louise W. 

Flanagan, District Judge. (2:08-cr-00005-FL-1)

Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kareem Akeem McMurrin, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. MayParker, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kareem Akeem McMurrin appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion 

for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. United States v. McMurrin, No. 

2:08-cr-00005-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2013); see also United 

States v. Black, 737 F.3d 280, 287 (4th Cir. 2013). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
10472 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Indian Gaming

ACTION: Notice of Approved Tribal-State

Compact.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2710, of

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of

1988 (Pub. L. 100–497), the Secretary of

the Interior shall publish, in the Federal

Register, notice of approved Tribal-State

Compacts for the purpose of engaging in

Class III (casino) gambling on Indian

reservations. The Assistant Secretary—

Indian Affairs, Department of the

Interior, through her delegated

authority, has approved the Tribal-State

Compact Between the Klamath Tribes

and the State of Oregon, which was

executed on December 16, 1994.

DATES: This action is effective upon date

of publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George T. Skibine, Director, Indian

Gaming Management Staff, Bureau of

Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20240.

(202) 219–4068.

Dated: February 13, 1995.

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 95–4587 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02
Exhibit 4.2



 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated December 6, 2022, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2142 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-267459) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


December 6, 2022
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  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 on Form 10-K of Unify Corporation (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Todd E. Wille, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2)   The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period
covered by the Report.

July 17,
2003

| |  | /s/TODD E. WILLETodd E. Wille
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original 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. This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---

QuickLinks
# The Attorney General of Texas

April 16, 1980 MARK WHITE Attorney General
Honorable Gibson D.(Gib)Lewis Committee onIntergovernmental Affairs House ofRepresentatives Austin, Texas 78769 Opinion No. MW-174 Re: Whether a Board ofFiremen’s Relief and Retirement Fund Trustees is covered by the Open Meetings Act. Dear Representative Lewis: Youhave asked our opinion on two questions relating to the application of the Texas Open Meetings Act, article 6252-17, V.T.C.S., to boards of Firemen’s Relief and Retirement Fund Trustees. Your first question is:

Does the Board ofFiremen’s Relief and Retirement Fund Trustees as set ,forth by Article 6243e, V.T.C.S., constitute a ‘governmental body’ asdefined by Article 6252-17, V.T.C.S., The Open Meetings Act’ The Texas Open Meetings Act applies to “governmental bodies” as defined by that act. Section l(c) defines “governmental body” to include n

. . . every deliberative body having rule-making or quasi-judicial power and classified as a department, agency, or political subdivision of a county or city.” Boards of Firemen’s Relief and Retirement Fund Trustees are established in sections 3 and 3B of article 6243e, V.T.C.S. They are composed of city officials and elected members of the fire department. In some instances resident citizens of the city are selected to serve as well. The boards’ basic duty is to administer the retirement program established under article 6243e, V.T.C.S. We believe that it is clear that these boards are departments or agencies of the city and have rule-making and quasi-judicial power. Compare V.T.C.S. article 6243e, section 9 and Board of Firemen’s Relief and Retirement Fund Trustees of Harris County v. Stevens, 372 S.W.2d 572 ITex. Civ. App. - Houston 1963, no writ) (quasi-judicial authority) with Attorney General Opinion H-467 (1974)(definition of rule-making and qux judicial authority).

p. 553Honorable Gibson D. (Gib)Lewis - Page Two (MW-174)

Accordingly, we believe Boards of Firemen’s Relief and Retirement Fund Trustees are governmental bodies covered by the Texas Open Meetings Act. Your second question is: Are instances detailed by statute or opinion whereby a Board of Firemen’s Relief and Retirement Fund Trustees can enter ‘executive session,’ and exclude the public. Section 2ofthe Open Meetings Act details instances in which an executive session is permissible. Whether any particular meeting is properly closed under one of these exceptions set out in section 2will depend on the facts of the specific situation. SUMMARY Boards of Firemen’s Relief and Retirement Fund Trustees are governmental bodies covered by the Texas Open Meeti

MARK WHITE Attorney General ofTexas JOHN W.FAINTER, JR. First Assistant Attorney General TED L. HARTLEY Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared by C. Robert Heath Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE C. Robert Heath, Chairman Jim Allison Susan Garrison Rick Gilpin Bruce Youngblood

P. 554
#### WINNIFRED MacBRIDE THOMAS v. CATAWBA COLLEGE.

(Filed 30 June, 1958)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Williams, J.,*September Civil Term, 1957, Of ORANGE.

*Barnie P. Jones and W. R. Dalton, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.*

*McLendon, Brim, Holderness & Brooks, C. T. Leonard, Jr., and Linn & Linn for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

Civil action to recover damages for alleged wrongful discharge, consolidated for trial, by consent, with similar action *by Christopher J. Thomas (plaintiff’s husband) v. Catawba College, ante,*609.

Plaintiff was a member of the faculty of Catawba College, to wit, a Teacher of Piano, with the academic rank of Associate Professor. *617Under her contract for the academic year 1951-1952, her salary was $3,000.00.

The material facts are essentially the same as stated in the Chris- ' topher J. Thomas case. Plaintiff’s employment was terminated by the Board of Trustees as of February 23, 1952. The resolution of the Board of Trustees, quoted in the notification of dismissal, contained this provision: “Further, as provided in the tenure policy of the college, her salary shall be continued for one year from date of this notice. Payments thereunder are to be made in accordance with the standard pay schedule of the college.

Thereafter, plaintiff received, endorsed and collected checks aggregating $3,000.00, paid to her, as directed by the Board of Trustees, as *salary*for the year following notification of dismissal. The notation, “FINAL PAYMENT,” was on the last check, a check dated February 21, 1953, for $210.48.

For reasons stated in opinion in the *Christopher J. Thomas*case, the judgment of nonsuit, entered by the court below at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, is affirmed.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with thequarterly report of bebe stores, inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended January 2, 2010, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter Parks, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,based on my knowledge:

 

(1)    TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)    Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: February 11,  2010 | /s/ Walter Parks                                     |
|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                | Walter Parks                                         |
|                                | Chief Operating Officer  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3776 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to make fraudulent dealings in 

firearms and ammunition unlawful, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8 (legislative day, MARCH 7), 2022 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, and Mr. 

BOOKER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to make fraudulent 

dealings in firearms and ammunition unlawful, 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 ‘‘Stopping the Fraudu5 lent Sales of Firearms Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FRAUDULENT DEALINGS IN FIREARMS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 922(a) of title 18, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3776 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and 

2 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(10) for any person— 

5 ‘‘(A) to import, manufacture, or sell a fire6 arm or ammunition by means of false or fraud7 ulent pretenses, representations, or promises; 

8 and 

9 ‘‘(B) to transmit or cause to be trans10 mitted, by means of wire, radio, or television 

11 communication in interstate or foreign com12 merce, any communication relating to the im13 portation, manufacture, or sale described in 

14 subparagraph (A).’’. 

15 (b) PENALTY.—Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, 

16 United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘(a)(10),’’ 

17 before ‘‘(f)’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3154

___________ Ralph Read, M.D.; * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * United States of America, ex rel., * Ralph Read, M.D., * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District Plaintiff, * of South Dakota. * v. * [UNPUBLISHED] * Central Plains Clinic; Medical X-Ray * Center, P.C., * * Defendants-Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 10, 1999

Filed: May 20, 1999

___________ Before McMILLIAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Having unsuccessfully appealed to this court twice before, Ralph Read now appeals from the district court's adverse ruling dismissing Read's qui tam action against Central Plains Clinic and Medical X-Ray Center, P.C. Having reviewed the record and theparties' briefs, we conclude the district court's ruling was correct and an extended-2-

discussionis not warranted. We thus affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 10.32


 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


(this "Note")


 


 


 


 


	Borrower:	Aqua Power Systems Inc of 2180 N. Park Ave, Suite 200, Winter Park, FL 32789 (the "Borrower")
	 	 
	Lender:	Stephen Carnes of 2180 N. Park Ave, Suite 200, Winter Park, FL 32789 (the "Lender")
	 	 
	 	 
	Principal Amount:	$225,000.00 USD



 


	1.	FOR VALUE RECEIVED, The Borrower promises to pay to the Lender at such address as may be provided in writing
to the Borrower, the principal sum of $225,000.00 USD, with interest payable on the unpaid principal at the rate of 10.00 percent per
annum, calculated monthly not in advance, beginning on December 22, 2022.
	 	 
	2.	This Note will be repaid in full on June 22nd, 2023.
	 	 
	3.	At any time while not in default under this Note, the Borrower may pay the outstanding balance then
owing under this Note to the Lender without further bonus or penalty.
	 	 
	4.	The Borrower shall be liable for all costs, expenses and expenditures incurred including, without limitation,
the complete legal costs of the Lender incurred by enforcing this Note as a result of any default by the Borrower and such costs will
be added to the principal then outstanding and shall be due and payable by the Borrower to the Lender immediately upon demand of the Lender.
	 	 
	5.	If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Note is held by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, void or unenforceable, it is the parties' intent that such provision be reduced in scope by the court only to the extent
deemed necessary by that court to render the provision reasonable and enforceable and the remainder of the provisions of this Note will
in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated as a result.
	 	 
	6.	This Note will be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Florida.
	 	 
	7.	This Note will enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns of the Borrower and the Lender. The Borrower waives presentment for payment, notice of non-payment, protest and
notice of protest.



 


 


 


 






    	 	1	 



     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly affixed their signatures
under seal


 


 


 





	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	Aqua Power Systems Inc
	SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED	 	 	 
	this 22nd day of December, 2022.	 	 	 
	 	 	 	Per: /s/ Stephen W. Carnes                                     

      (SEAL)

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 



 


 


 


 





	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED	 	 	 
	this 22nd day of December, 2022.	 	 	 
	 	 	 	/s/ Stephen W. Carnes                                     
	 	 	 	Stephen Carnes
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 


 


 


 











 





 


 


 


 


 


 


 



    	 	2
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-1071

Lower Tribunal No. CF 08-1111

_____________________________

RENNY ARMSTRONG, SR.,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Highlands County.

Peter F. Estrada, Judge.

May 28, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and WOZNIAK and MIZE, JJ., concur.

Renny Armstrong, Sr., Doral, pro se. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED