alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### D. M. HARDIN, doing business as D. M. Hardin Grocery, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. F. J. COOK, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 8248.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Oct. 29, 1954.

*517Lunn, Irion, Switzer, Trichel & Johnson, Shreveport, Jasper K. Smith, Jr., Vivian, for appellant.

Simon Herold, Shreveport, for appellee.

AYRES, Judge.

Plaintiff sought judgment on an open account for merchandise sold and delivered to the defendant. Defendant denied the account and, after trial on the merits, filed a plea of prescription of .three years under LSA-C.C. Art. 3538. This plea was sustained by the trial court. From the judgment rendered, plaintiff appealed.

The evidence discloses that for a considerable period of time,1 possibly as long as 10 years, defendant made purchases of and had an account with plaintiff. In 1947 defendant, evidently, realizing his indebtedness was becoming excessive, informed plaintiff'that because of tbisfact he would have to quit doing business with him. It was agreed, however, that the past due account be put aside or kept to itself and that defendant would continue trading with plaintiff, the new purchases to be kept on a separate account, and defendant would pay his current bills as they became due and $50 per month on his old account. Defendant paid $50 at the time of the agreement, reducing the account, according to plaintiff, .to $456.25. Under the arrangement, defendant continued purchasing merchandise from plaintiff until December 30, 1950, and paid up that account. No further payment was made on the old account un-ti| August 6, 1951, when $10 was paid by defendant through his wife.

These facts are the basis for defendant’s plea of prescription. Open accounts are prescribed by the lapse of three years. LSA-C.C. Art. 3538.

The account is prescribed on ■ its face unless the payment of August 6, 1951, effected a renewal "of the' account or was sufficient as a renunciation of the accrued prescription.

Plaintiff’s position is untenable. A payment upon an open account does not either effectuate a renewal of the account which' has already prescribed or a renunciation of the accrued prescription, and when an obligation to pay an open account becomes barred by prescription, to restore its status as an enforcible obligation, a payment thereon must be accompanied by a. definite, affirmative and unqualified promise on the part of the debtor to pay the obligation. It was so held by this court in Ivey v. Joyce, La.App., 195 So. 33. The payment made by the wife ,at defendant’s request could not be held in any sense of the word to constitute an unqualified promise on the. part .of the defendant. to pay the obligation. The plea of prescription was properly sustained.

The: judgment appealed is, therefore, affirmed at appellant’s costs'.1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1341 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1341

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide capital gain 
   treatment under section 631(b) of such Code for outright sales of 
                         timber by landowners.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2001

 Mr. Collins introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide capital gain 
   treatment under section 631(b) of such Code for outright sales of 
                         timber by landowners.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Timber Tax Simplification Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. CAPITAL GAIN TREATMENT UNDER SECTION 631(B) TO APPLY TO 
              OUTRIGHT SALES BY LANDOWNERS.

    (a) In General.--The first sentence of section 631(b) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to disposal of timber with a 
retained economic interest) is amended by striking ``retains an 
economic interest in such timber'' and inserting ``either retains an 
economic interest in such timber or makes an outright sale of such 
timber''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) The third sentence of section 631(b) of such Code is 
        amended by striking ``The date of disposal'' and inserting ``In 
        the case of disposal of timber with a retained economic 
        interest, the date of disposal''.
            (2) The heading for section 631(b) of such Code is amended 
        by striking ``With a Retained Economic Interest''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to sales after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. 06-mc-68-JD

Steven Wilson

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated February 13, 2007, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

March 12, 2007 /s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: David Plourde, AUSA

Steven Wilson, pro se

Case 1:06-mc-00068-JD Document 6 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v.

Juan J. Aldea

Criminal No. 06-cr-14-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document

no. 12) filed by defendant is granted and trial is rescheduled

for July 24, 2007.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

within 10 days. The court finds that the ends of justice

served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interest of

the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: April 10, 2007

cc: Mark Irish, Esq.

Anthony Ellison, Esq.

Jorel Booker, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00014-JD Document 13 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 15



                           Accountants' Acknowledgment
                           ---------------------------


Linens 'n Things, Inc.
Clifton, New Jersey

Board of Directors:

Re:  Registration Statements Numbers 333-71903, 333-42874, 333-55803, 333-62982
     and 333-62984 on Form S-8

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated July 23, 2003 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.




KPMG LLP



New York, New York
August 19, 2003







                                       21
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 11 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 11

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
    authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of 
   desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal 
                        penalties for that act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2001

   Mrs. Emerson introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
    authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of 
   desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal 
                        penalties for that act.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,  That the following article is 
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the 
Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the 
several States within seven years after the date of its submission for 
ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``The Congress and the States shall have power to prohibit the act 
of desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal 
penalties for that act.''.
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00497-CR

Jesse Wyatt Vickers, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 18-2212-K26, THE HONORABLE DONNA GAYLE KING, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant Jesse Wyatt Vickers filed his notice of appeal on October 1, 2021. The 

reporter’s record was due on November 22, 2021. On reporter’s request(s), the time for filing 

was extended to February 22, 2022. On February 22, 2022, Ms. Cindy Kocher requested a 

third extension of time. We order Ms. Kocher to file the reporter’s record in this cause no later 

than March 22, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(a). Failure to file the record will result in 

Ms. Kocher being called before the Court to show cause why she should not be held in contempt 

of this order.

It is ordered on February 25, 2022.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith

Do Not Publish
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 32


                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Simulations Plus, Inc., a California
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended February 28,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
Walter S. Woltosz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Momoko A. Beran,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify,
pursuant of ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that
to his/her knowledge:

     (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.


/S/ WALTER S. WOLTOSZ
-------------------------------
Walter S. Woltosz
Chief Executive Officer
April 14, 2005


/S/ MOMOKO A. BERAN
-------------------------------
Momoko A. Beran
Chief Financial Officer
April 14, 2005

(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Simulations Plus, Inc. and will be retained by Simulations Plus,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.)
#### CITY OF FRANKFORT, Kentucky, Appellant, v. Mrs. R. A. (Pansy) THOMPSON, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 9, 1972.

*447Allen Prewitt, City Solicitor, Frankfort, for appellant.

Max M. Smith, Chancellor, Darnell & Smith, Frankfort, for appellee.

OSBORNE, Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court in a proceeding commonly referred to as “reverse condemnation.” Appellee was awarded damages for a permanent taking in the amount of $4788 representing the difference between the before and after values of the land, and damages of $3150 for temporary injury to the enjoyment of her land not taken.

The City of Frankfort has long operated a garbage and trash dump on property adjacent to appellee’s farm. There is a high, extremely steep hill, the crest of which is the dividing line between property owned by the city and appellee’s property. The dump is on the crest of the hill and as the city moves the debris toward appellee’s farm it rolls down the hill onto her property and practically into her front yard. Ap-pellee and her husband purchased the 100-acre farm in 1929. The City of Frankfort purchased its property in 1941. Due to the large quantity of material dumped and the nature of the terrain, trash and assorted debris have for many years swept down the hill onto appellee’s land destroying her fences and damaging other structures. There was proof of fires, which destroyed standing timber on appellee’s land, and, in general, the overall effect of the city’s practice of pushing the debris over the hill was to create an unsanitary, unscenic, unhealthful, smelly situation. The removal of the debris is rendered practically impossible due to the steepness of the slope and the fact that it is covered with timber.

Appellant now argues before this court that the verdict for permanent damages of $4788 was excessive and the verdict of $3150 for temporary damage to the enjoyment of the remaining land was not supported by the evidence. It contends that since there was .77 of an acre of land taken the verdict of $4788 is excessive at first blush as the award represents 7% of the value of the total farm, when only 1% of the land was taken. We do not believe the so-called percentage rule should be applied in this situation. It was not applied in Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Highways v. Carlisle, Ky., 442 S.W.2d 294 (1969), wherein we sustained a jury verdict amounting to 64% of the value of the land where only 12% of the land was taken. Even though appellant argues *448that there is a percentage rule and that it should be applied in this case, we do not recognize the existence of such rule. The applying of percentages is something that has been done in certain cases merely to demonstrate the excessiveness or lack of excessiveness of a verdict.

We are of the opinion the $3150 awarded for loss of enjoyment of the land remaining was reasonable under the facts of this case and adequately supported by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All concur.
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




December 2008


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: March 31, 2009
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-154-01-SM

Timothy Seeley

O R D E R

Defendant Seeley’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 9). Trial has been rescheduled for the April 2007

trial period. Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than

January 31, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: March 23, 2007 at 1:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: April 3, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00154-SM Document 10 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

January 24, 2007

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Debra Walsh, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00154-SM Document 10 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1627

To redesignate the Federal building located at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, in the District of Columbia, and known as the Old Post Office

Pavilion, as the ‘‘Paul Leroy Robeson Old Post Office Pavilion’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 26, 2001

Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To redesignate the Federal building located at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, in the District of Columbia, and

known as the Old Post Office Pavilion, as the ‘‘Paul

Leroy Robeson Old Post Office Pavilion’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAUL LEROY ROBESON OLD POST OFFICE PA4 VILION.

5 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The Federal building located

6 at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, in the District of Co7 lumbia, and known as the Old Post Office Pavilion, shall
2

•HR 1627 IH

1 be known and designated as the ‘‘Paul Leroy Robeson Old

2 Post Office Pavilion’’.

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, regula4 tion, document, paper, map, or other record of the United

5 States to the Federal building referred to in subsection

6 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Paul Leroy

7 Robeson Old Post Office Pavilion.

Æ
Exhibit 99.1



Consent of IBOPE Inteligência



We hereby consent to (1) the use of and
all references to the name of IBOPE Inteligência and Instituto Brasileiro de Opinião Pública e Estatísticain the annual report on Form 20-F of StoneCo Ltd. (the “Company”) and any amendments thereto (the “Annual
Report”) and any other filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or any correspondence with the SEC by the Company;
including, but not limited to, the use of the information supplied by us and set forth under the sections “Item 4.—Information
on the Company—A. History and development of the company” and “Item 4.—Information on the Company—B.
Business overview”; and (2) the filing of this consent as an exhibit to any such filings with the SEC by the Company.



Sincerely,



|By:    | /s/
Márcia Cavallari Nunes |  | By:    | /s/ André
Rodrigues da Silva       
|------ | -------------------------- |  | ------ | -----------------------------------
|Name:  | Márcia Cavallari Nunes     |  | Name:  | André
Rodrigues da Silva           
|Title: | Diretora Executiva         |  | Title: | Gerente Administrativo e Financeiro





April 26,
2019
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22279]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1529-000]


NorthWestern Corp.; Notice of Filing

September 17, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 12, 2008, NorthWestern Corporation 
(NorthWestern) tendered for filing an executed Agreement to purchase 
Regulating Reserve Services from Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant 
County, Washington.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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#84c2c1d6c7cbeae8edeae1d7f1f4f4ebf6f0c4e2e1f6e7aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="397f7c6b7a76575550575c6a4c4949564b4d795f5c4b5a175e564f">[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 October 3, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22279 Filed 9-23-08; 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>
Exhibit 32(a)

TXU CORP.

Certificate Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CEO

The undersigned, C. John Wilder, Chairman, President and CEO of TXU Corp. (the Company),
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 5th day of May, 2006.



/s/  C. John WilderName:  C. John WilderTitle:    Chairman, President and CEO


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TXU Corp. and
will be retained by TXU Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0780

_____________________________

INTERNATIONAL BONDED 

COURIERS, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

REVENUE,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Division of Administrative Hearings.

John G. Van Laningham, Administrative Law Judge.

June 6, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jeanette Moffa, Joseph C. Moffa, Jonathan W. Taylor, and James 

F. McAuley of Moffa, Sutton, & Donnini, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Timothy E. Dennis, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, and Jacek P. Stramski, Special 

Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




March 2004


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------