alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert Boulanger et al., complainants-respondents, v. Sophie Hetzel et al., defendants-appellants.

[Submitted and decided November 18th, 1910.]

Ileirs-at-law seeking through the aid of the court of chancery to set aside a deed of land procured from their deceased ancestor by fraud and undue influence are not deprived of their standing for that purpose by the fact that the ancestor has executed an instrument purporting to be a will and to devise the same land to the grantees in the deed but which instrument is admittedly invalid for such purpose.

On appeal from an order of the court of chancery overruling a demurrer to bill of complaint.

*Mr. Samuel A.*Besson, for the appellant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

The bill is brought by certain heirs-at-law of Marianne Obry, deceased, and seeks to have set aside two deeds made by her in her lifetime to the defendants, Sophie and Frank Hetzel, as having been procured by fraud and undue influence. The sole ground on which the demurrer, which was overruled below, is rested in this court is that “the court of chancery is without jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for in the bill.” Counsel very properly does not deny that if the bill presented simply the case set forth above, the court of chancery would have full jurisdiction, but maintains that because the bill alleges, in addition, that after the deeds attacked were made, the decedent, through fraud, undue influence, and duress of said defendants, and while mentally incompetent to do so, made a paper-writing purporting to be a will, devising to the said defendants the same property de*282scribed in the deeds, which paper has been offered for probate, but is awaiting adjudication by reason of a caveat filed by one of complainants; that complainants have thereby shown that they have no standing as heirs-at-law to attack the deeds, and can have none until (in the language óf counsel) the will, which complainants admit exists, is set aside. But this is manifestly not so, as complainants have made no such admission. On the contrary, they set up facts which necessarily negative the idea that there is any lawful will, and indicate that the paper in question is not the mil of Marianne Obry because of the fraud, undue influence, &c., set up in the bill; and this the demurrer necessarily admits. For the purposes of this demurrer, therefore, complainants stand as if no paper testamentary in form had ever been signed.

The order brought up will be affirmed, with costs.

*For affirmance*— Tim Ci-iief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgi-i, Vroom, Congdon — 13.

*For reversal*— None.
#### Hine et al. *v.*McDonald, Admr., etc.

[No. 18,793.

Filed April 3, 1956.]

*375*Bloom & Bloom,*of Columbia City, for appellants.

*Gates & Gates,*of Columbia City, and *J. Robert McDonald,*of Fort Wayne, for appellee.

Royse, C. J.

Appellants brought this action to have the order of the Whitley Circuit Court appointing Administrator of the estate of William A. Hine, deceased, set aside, and to revoke the letters of administration issued to said appellee. Trial to the court resulted in finding against appellants and in favor of appellee. Judgment accordingly. The error assigned here is the overruling of appellants’ motion for a new trial. The only specification of that motion which presents a question is that the finding of the court is contrary to law.

Appellants contend the appointment of appellee was void because the verified application for letters did not state the sole purpose of the appointment was to file an action for wrongful death against residents of Whitley County.

Section 7-418, Burns’ 1953 Replacement, provides as follows:

> “Administrator for estate of nonresident — Purpose. — Any court having probate jurisdiction in the state of Indiana may appoint an administrator for the estate of a nonresident for the sole purpose of bringing an action to recover damages for the *376wrongful death of such nonresident. The appointment may be made in the county in which the death occurred; or in the county in which the injury causing the death was received; *or in the county in which any party defendant to the suit resides.*The appointment shall in no way depend upon ' whether or not the decedent left assets. [Acts 1953, ch. 112, §1018, p. 295.]” (Our emphasis).

Appellants admit that they were residents of Whitley County, Indiana, at the time of the appellee’s appointment as administrator, but such fact was not stated to the court under oath or contained in the verified application upon which the court based the appointment.

The record herein discloses that appellee, at the time he opened the estate, told the court he was opening the estate for the sole purpose of filing an action for the wrongful death of decedent. It further discloses the Judge of the Whitley Circuit Court typed on the docket sheet of the estate docket “Wrongful Death Only” at the time appellee was appointed. On the day appellee was appointed, he, as such administrator, filed an action against appellants for the wrongful death of his decedent.

On this record we are of the opinion there is no merit to appellants contentions set out above.

Appellants present no question as to the admission of certain testimony because their motion for a new trial did not state the objection made at the time the evidence was offered.

Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 133 N. E. 2d 77.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 75 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6254]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          COMMONSENSE PRODUCT LIABIL- ITY AND LEGAL REFORM ACT

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

              order for cloture vote to begin at 4:20 p.m.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that a couple of our 
colleagues, one on each side of the aisle, may not be available until 
4:15 or 4:20. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote scheduled 
for 4 p.m. today be postponed to occur at 4:20 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                       unanimous-consent request

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would also ask unanimous consent that the 
pending Gorton substitute be modified to reflect to ``Strike all after 
the first word, and insert,'' and on page 20, line 6, strike ``or (2)'' 
and on line 14, strike ``or (2)''.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have discussed this with the 
leadership. I would have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate we were trying to clear up a 
procedural problem. The Senator certainly has every right to object. It 
may mean that this will be corrected tomorrow, if cloture is not 
invoked today. I hope cloture will be invoked today.

                          ____________________
```
Bar Docket No. 13564

#### In the Matter of Gary W. Long II, *Respondent.*

(957 P.2d 1105)

In a letter dated January 27, 1998, to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent Gary W. Long II, of Kansas City, Kansas, an attorney admitted to practice law in the state of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (1997 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 232).

Respondent was informally admonished on September 10,1992, for failing to diligently pursue a discrimination action on behalf of a client. On July 8, 1994, this court suspended imposition of discipline against respondent and placed him on supervised probation for a period of 2 years. *In re Long,*255 Kan. 792, 877 P.2d 421 (1994). In that case, the court determined that respondent had failed to competently and diligently handle cases for three separate clients.

On October 15, 1997, a hearing was held before the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys on two other complaints — A6353 and A6764. The hearing panel determined that respondent had failed to competently handle a criminal matter in federal court, had failed to competently handle a real estate matter for his client, and had failed to cooperate in the investigation of the complaint filed against him in A6764. The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 1 year. These two complaints had not been docketed with the Supreme Court at the time respondent surrendered his license.

At the time respondent surrendered his license, there were two additional complaints pending investigation by the Disciplinary Administrator’s office.

This court, having examined the files of the office of the Disciplinary Administrator, finds that the surrender of respondent’s license should be accepted and that respondent should be disbarred.

It Is Therefore Ordered that Gary W. Long II be and he is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas and his license and privilege to practice law are hereby revoked.

*3Dated this 6th day of March, 1998.

It Is Further Ordered that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of Gary W. Long II from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

It Is Further Ordered that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports, that the costs herein shall be assessed to respondent, and that respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (1997 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 235).
#### Byron K. Stickle et al., complainants-respondents, *v.*High Standard Steel Company, defendants-appellants.

[Argued March 16th, 1911.

Decided June 19th, 1911.]

On appeal of George D. Hendrickson, receiver, from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Howell.

*Mr. George D. Hendrickson, pro se,*for the appellants.

*Messrs. Pitney, Hardin & Skinner, for*the respondents.

Per Curiam.

The decree is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion on the appeal of Alfred W. Hoyt, *ante p. 549.*

*For affirmance*— The Chiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenohard, Parker, Bergen, Voortiees, Minturn, Bogert, VrEDENBURGH, CONGDON, *SULLIVAN*— 12.

*For reversal*— None.
[No. 43495-1-I.

Division One.

April 24, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. William Prigmore, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 97-1-10081-6, Ann Schindler, J., entered May 18, 1998. *Dismissed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 175 (Friday, September 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 55405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22569]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer 
Assistance Center Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 26, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Smiley at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-
231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Committee will be held Tuesday, October 26, 2010, at 1 p.m. 
Central Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make 
oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to 
limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be 
made with Ellen Smiley. For more information please contact Ms. Smiley 
at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 
211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or post comments 
to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: September 1, 2010.
Shawn F. Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2010-22569 Filed 9-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
[No. 18319-0-III.

Division Three.

March 28, 2000.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Lila L. Barnett, *Respondent,*and Charles W. Barnett, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 94-3-00569-6, Heather K. Van Nuys, J, entered February 12, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, A.C.J., concurred in by Sweeney and Schultheis, JJ.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Speaker:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                      May 3, 1995.
       I hereby designate the Honorable Bob Inglis to act as 
     Speaker pro tempore on this day.
                                                    Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2906 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2906

 To provide for the treatment and extension of temporary financing of 
                   short-time compensation programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 18, 2014

 Mr. Reed (for himself, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Whitehouse) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the treatment and extension of temporary financing of 
                   short-time compensation programs.

    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 ``Layoff Prevention Extension Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY FINANCING OF SHORT-TIME COMPENSATION 
              PAYMENTS IN STATES WITH PROGRAMS IN LAW.

    (a) In General.--Section 2162(b) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and 
Job Creation Act of 2012 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``3 years'' and 
        inserting ``4 years''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2)--
                    (A) in the heading, by striking ``Three-year'' and 
                inserting ``Four-year''; and
                    (B) by striking ``156 weeks'' and inserting ``208 
                weeks''.
    (b) Technical Correction.--Section 3306(v)(6) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 3306) is amended by inserting ``or the 
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act'' after ``1998''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANTS 
              FOR SHORT-TIME COMPENSATION PROGRAMS.

    Section 2164(c)(1) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 
Act of 2012 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended by striking ``December 31, 
2014'' and inserting ``December 31, 2015''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
31.1



CERTIFICATION



I,
Xinrong Zhuo, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed
    this report on Form 10-K/A of Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd.; and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
| | 2. | Based
                                         on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
                                         this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
                                         of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
                                         in this report;
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
| | 3. | Based on my knowledge,
    this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
    statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
    covered by this report.                                                                                                                                     



|/s/
    XINRONG ZHUO        | 
|--------------------------- | 
|Xinrong
    Zhuo            | 
|Chief
    Executive Officer | 
|                            | 
|October6, 2016              |
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Steven P.
Wyandt, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Nitches, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended November 30, 2007, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Nitches, Inc.

|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: January 24,
      2008 
|                             
|/s/ Steven P. Wyandt         
|                             
|Steven P.
      Wyandt       
|Chief Executive
      Officer

This certification is furnished pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by Nitches, Inc. for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference in to any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent that Nitches, Inc.
specifically incorporates it by reference.

24

---
Exhibit 23.1

CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.

PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS



|                                |  |                                    |  |                                 
|------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------
|9601 AMBERGLEN BLVD., SUITE 117 |  | 306 WEST SEVENTH STREET, SUITE 302 |  | 1000 LOUISIANA STREET, SUITE 625
|AUSTIN, TEXAS 78729-1106        |  | FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102-4987       |  | HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5008       
|512-249-7000                    |  | 817- 336-2461                      |  | 713-651-9944                    
|                                |  | www.cgaus.com                      |  |                                 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

We hereby consent to the use of the oil and gas reserve information in the Enduro Royalty Trust Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2013, based on the reserve report dated January 22, 2014. We also consent to the inclusion of our report dated January 22, 2014 as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and to the incorporation by reference
of such report in Enduro Royalty Trusts Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-188864).



LOGORobert D. Ravnaas, P.E.PresidentCawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc.Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-693


Fort Worth, Texas

March 10, 2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20413

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAFAEL E. RIVAS-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CV-3335

USDC No. 4:04-CR-145-2

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rafael E. Rivas-Lopez, federal prisoner # 16285-179, requests a 

certificate of appealability (COA) so that he may appeal the district court’s 

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. His request to supplement his COA 

motion and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED.

In 2012, we remanded the case to the district court and ordered it to hold 

an evidentiary hearing on Rivas-Lopez’s claim that he received ineffective 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20413 Document: 00513516341 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2016
No. 15-20413

2

assistance of counsel during the plea negotiating stage of his criminal 

proceedings. Rivas-Lopez now challenges the district court’s failure to appoint 

counsel to represent him at that hearing. Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing

§ 2255 Proceedings required the district court to appoint Rivas-Lopez counsel 

for the evidentiary hearing because Rivas-Lopez was unable to afford retained

counsel. See United States v. Vasquez, 7 F.3d 81, 84 (5th Cir. 1993). RivasLopez’s motion for a COA is therefore GRANTED. The district court’s 

judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for a new evidentiary 

hearing with appointed counsel. Rivas-Lopez’s motion for the preparation of a 

transcript at the Government’s expense is DENIED.

 Case: 15-20413 Document: 00513516341 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2016