alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11,950.

#### Giles *v.*Canary.

*Practice.*— Defect *of*Parties.— *Waiver.*— That there is a defect of parties defendants is waived if objection be not made by demurrer.

*Same.*— Evidence.— *Weight.*— *Credibility.*— Supreme *Court.*— The Supreme Court will not weigh conflicting evidence, nor determine as to the credibility of witnesses.

*Judgment.*— Promissory *Note.*— Joint *and Several Contract.*— Merger.—A judgment against one of several makers of a joint and several note does not merge the note or work the release of the other makers.

From the Sullivan Circuit Court.

*J. G. Briggs*and *G. E. Barrett,*for appellant.

*W. 8. Maple*and *8. Gonlson,*for appellee.

Elliott, J. —

The appellant, without having demurred to the complaint below, now insists, under a specification in the assignment of errors, that the pleading is bad because it shows on' its face a non-joinder of necessary parties defendants. The objection is not available under the attack here made upon the complaint.

The only question presented by the record is whether the verdict is sustained by the evidence. The appellant claimed that he was the surety on the note sued on, and that this fact Avas knoAvn to the appellant, and he further claimed that the time of payment was extended without his consent, and that interest was received from the principal in advance. It Avas established that the appellant Avas surety, and that the appellee had knowledge of the fact, but there Avas a direct conflict of evidence upon the question Avhether the time-of payment was extended. It is the settled rule that where the court below gives credit to witnesses testifying to a state of facts, and accepts their testimony as correct, this court will also act upon the state of facts taken as correct by the trial court. *Arnold*v. *Wilt,*86 Ind. 367; *Cain*v. *Goda,*94 Ind. 555; *Julian*v. *Western Union Tel. Co.,*98 Ind. 327. We can not, therefore, disturb the finding of the court upon this point.

*117Filed Dec. 18, 1884.

The appellant read in evidence a judgment rendered in this action against John Wagner, one of the makers of the note, ■which was rendered upon default sometime prior to the filing of the supplemental answer pleading a discharge by reason of the merger of the note in that judgment. The note sued on reads: *“*I promise to pay to the order of Christian Canary three hundred dollars,” and is a joint .and several note, and not a joint obligation. *Lambert*v. *Lagow,*1 Blackf. 388; *Groves*v. *Stephenson,*5 Blackf. 584; *Maiden*v. *Webster,*30 Ind. 317. The rule that a judgment upon a joint obligation merges the cause of action, and works a release of a joint obligor against whom no judgment is taken, docs not apply to a joint and several note. Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 85 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5369]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

  A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate had passed without amendment a bill of the 
House of the following title:

       H.R. 1421. An act to provide that references in the 
     statutes of the United States to any committee or officer of 
     the House of Representatives the name or jurisdiction of 
     which was changed as part of the reorganization of the House 
     of Representatives at the beginning of the 104th Congress 
     shall be treated as referring to the currently applicable 
     committee or officer of the House of Representatives.

  The message also announced that the Senate had passed a bill of the 
following title, in which the concurrence of the House is requested:

       S. 184. An act to establish an Office for Rare Disease in 
     the National Institutes of Health, and for other purposes.

  The message also announced that pursuant to section 9355(a) of title 
10, United States Code, the Chair, on behalf of the Vice President, 
appoints Mr. Burns, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. Exon to the 
Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy.
  The message also announced that pursuant to section 4355(a) of title 
10, United States Code, the Chair, on behalf of the Vice President, 
appoints Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Reid to the Board of 
Visitors of the U.S. Military Academy.
  The message also announced that pursuant to section 6968(a) of title 
10, United States Code, the Chair, on behalf of the Vice President, 
appoints Mr. Hatfield, Mr. McCain, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Sarbanes to 
the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Naval Academy.

                          ____________________
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JAMES EDWARD BATES

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00183

- C R

Appeal from the

346th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20180D02621 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 9 TH D AY OF SEPTEMBER 2024.

G INA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO andCFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Davidson Diversified Real Estate III, L.P. (the"Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), StevenD. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership,and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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 Partnership.

 

 

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
Exhibit 35.3



LOGO

3815 South West Temple | Salt Lake City, Utah | 84115



|           |  |                           
|---------- |  | --------------------------
|Agreement: |  | See Schedule of Agreements
|           | 
|Dated:     |  | See Attached Schedule     

ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

In accordance with the applicable section in each of the Pooling and Servicing Agreements specified:



| | i. | a review of the activities of the Servicer during the year ended December 31, 2014 and of performance under this Agreement has been made under such officers supervision; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | ii. | to the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled in all material respects all of its obligations and no default has occurred under this Agreement throughout such year.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 18, 2015



|                                
|--------------------------------
|/s/ Timothy J. OBrien          
|Timothy J. OBrien              
|Chief Executive Officer         
|Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.



---

Schedule of Agreements





Flow Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights Sale and Servicing Agreement Among Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer, DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., as Servicing
Rights Purchaser, and Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation, as Owner, 5/5/2011

Assignment, Assumption and Recognition Agreement for the Sequoia
Mortgage Trust 2011-2, among Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation (the Assignor), Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc. (the Depositor), Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., (the Servicer), DLJ Mortgage Capital,
Inc. (the Servicing Rights Purchaser) and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, servicing under the Flow Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights Sale and Servicing Agreement Among Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer, DLJ Mortgage
Capital, Inc., as Servicing Rights Purchaser, and Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation, as Owner, 9/27/2011

Assignment, Assumption and Recognition
Agreement for the Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-1, among Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation (the Assignor), Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc. (the Depositor), Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., (the
Servicer), DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. (the Servicing Rights Purchaser) and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, servicing under the Flow Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights Sale and Servicing Agreement Among Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer, DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., as Servicing Rights Purchaser, and Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation, as Owner, 1/27/2012
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTHONY CARMINATI.

Dec. 20, 1979.

Petition for certification denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 16

- 00485

- CR
Salvador ZARATE , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas Trial Court No. 15

- CRS

- 402 Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 28, 2016
DIS MISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION The clerk’s record was due to be filed in this appeal on September 8, 2016. On September 8, 2 016, the trial court clerk filed a notification of late record stating the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and appellant is not entitled to appeal wi thout paying the fee. On September 9, 2016, appellant was ordered to provide written proof to this court by September 19, 2016 that either: (1) the clerk’s fee had been paid or arrangements had been made04

- 16

- 00485

- CR

- 2

- to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is enti tled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. 1 The order stated if appellant failed to respond within the time provided, this appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(b). Appellant did not respond to this court’s order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id

. PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

1 The trial court’s certificate of notice of appeal shows that appellant is represented on appeal by a retained attorney.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     PRESERVING THE AMERICAN DREAM

  (Mr. RIGGS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, yesterday House Republicans 
offered a plan to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. Our plan 
allocates $11 trillion for Federal spending over the next 7 years. It 
protects Social Security. It eliminates three Cabinet-level 
departments, 13 agencies and 284 Federal programs, and it provides the 
much needed tax relief for families, as promised in our Contract With 
America.
  Now, let us look at what will happen if we take the House Democrats' 
approach and do nothing but maintain the status quo. A child born this 
year can expect to pay $187,000 over the course of his or her lifetime 
as a wage earner and taxpayer just in interest on the national debt, 
and in 2 years, interest on the national debt will exceed defense 
spending as the single largest item in the Federal budget.
  Mr. Speaker, which alternative would the House choose next week: the 
status quo or a plan to balance the budget by limiting the growth in 
Federal spending and eliminating wasteful spending and programs that 
simply have outlived their usefulness?
  The answer is clear. We have to balance the Federal budget. We have a 
moral imperative to preserve the American dream for our children and 
our grandchildren.

                          ____________________
```
News United States Air Force
 Air Force selects 4,998 in master sergeant promotion cycle, to post May 31Published May 25, 2023
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Air Force officials selected 4,998 Air Force technical sergeants for promotion to master sergeant out of 28,831 eligible for a selection rate of 17.3% in the 23E7 promotion cycle, which includes supplemental promotion opportunities.

Senior raters will be granted access to the select lists via the Virtual Enlisted Promotion Release application on May 24.

The master sergeant promotion list will be publicly available on the **Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs home page** May 31 at 8 a.m. CDT. Members will also be able to access their score notices on the virtual Military Personnel Flight via the AFPC Secure page.

For more information about Air Force personnel programs, visit the **AFPC public website**.FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



AFPC 



Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs 



promotion cycle 



Enlisted Promotion Release 



Enlisted Force Management
#### MARVIN F. MATLACK v. EDWARD A. KELLY, JR.

December 20, 1983.

It is ORDERED that the within appeal is dismissed as moot. (See 95 *N.J.*186 (1983))
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1732

MR. LESTER D. FLETCHER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ASHTON BALDWIN CARTER; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY DeCA , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Paula Xinis , District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv - 03897

- PX )

Submitted : October 24, 2017 Decided: November 2, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Lester D. Fletcher, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Elizabeth Anderson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lester D. Fletcher appeals the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his complaint filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended , 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 20 00e

- 17 (West 2012 & Supp. 2017); the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 to 796l (West 2008 & Supp. 2017) ; the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213 (2012); and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2012 & Supp. 2017). Seven days a fter the district court issued its memorandum opinion dismissing the complaint, Fletcher filed a “response,” arguing that he was entitled to equitable tolling. The district court returned the pleading without consideration, explaining that the case

was no w closed. “ [I]f a post

- judgment motion is filed within ten days of the entry of judgment and calls into question the correctness of that judgment it should be treated as a motion under Rule 59(e), how ever it may be formally styled. ” MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of So. Pines , 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008). Thus, Fletcher’s postjudgment motion is properly construed as a timely

- fil ed Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion

. Accordingly, we order a limited remand directing the district court to promptly docket Fletcher’s response as a Rule 59(e) motion and to consider the motion on its merits. If either party is dissatisfied after the district court disposes of the Rule 59(e)
motion and timely files a notice of appeal or amends its current notice, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)( B)(ii) , any appeal from the district court’s final order will be consolidated with this appeal. Regardless of the outcome of the Rule 59(e) motion, the record, as supplemented, will be returned to this court for further consideration.3 In ordering this l imited remand, w e express no opinion as to the merits of the motion. 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.
REMA NDED
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o
. 04

- 20

- 00 566

- C V
IN THE INTEREST OF A.H. , A.W. , and A.L.W. , Children From the 285 th Jud icial Dist rict C ourt , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019

- PA

- 02438 Honorable Linda A. Rodriguez , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 7, 2021
AFFIRMED ; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED Mother J.W. 1 appeal s the trial court’s order terminating her parent al rights to her children A.W. and A.L.W. 2 Mother’s court

- appointed counsel f iled a motion to withdraw and a brief representing that s he conducted a professional evaluation of the record and determined there are no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016 ) (per curiam) (recognizing Anders procedure applies in parental termination appeals). Counsel also certified that s he sent a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw to Mother , informed her of the right

1 To protect the identity of the minor children, we refer to the parties by fictitious names, initials, or aliases. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 109.002(d); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.8(b)(2).

2 A.H. turned 18 years old during the pendency of the case and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services was dismissed as her managing conservator.04

- 20

- 00566

- CV

- 2

- to review the record and file her own brief, an d provided Mother with a form motion to request access to the record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re
A.L.H. , No. 04

- 18

- 00153

- CV, 2018 WL 3861695, at *2 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Aug. 15, 2018, no pet.). This court i ssued an order setting the deadlines for Mother to request the record and file a pro se brief. Mother did not request the record or submit a pro se brief. After reviewing the record and counsel ’ s brief, we agree that there are no meritorious issues to be raised and the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court ’ s order. We deny counsel ’ s motion to withdraw because s he does not assert any ground for withdrawal other than
h er conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27

- 28 (holding counsel ’ s obligations in parental termination cases extend through the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals, including the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court). Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2778 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2778

   To require the Secretary of State to offer rewards totaling up to 
$10,000,000 for information on the kidnapping and murder of James Foley 
                          and Steven Sotloff.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 8, 2014

  Mr. Rubio (for himself, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Cruz, and Mr. 
    Nelson) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Secretary of State to offer rewards totaling up to 
$10,000,000 for information on the kidnapping and murder of James Foley 
                          and Steven Sotloff.

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

SECTION 1. REWARDS AUTHORIZED.

    (a) In General.--In accordance with the Rewards for Justice program 
authorized under section 36(b) of the State Department Basic 
Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2708(b)), the Secretary of State 
shall offer a reward to any individual who furnishes information 
leading to the arrest or conviction in any country of any individual 
for committing, conspiring or attempting to commit, or aiding or 
abetting in the commission of the kidnapping and murder of James Foley 
or Steven Sotloff.
    (b) Limitation.--The total amount of rewards offered under 
subsection (a) may not exceed $10,000,000, and the total amount of 
rewards offered in connection with the kidnapping and murder of either 
one of the individuals named in such subsection may not exceed 
$5,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 12, 2020

No. 04-19-00538-CV

William Alec TISDALL, M.D. and William A. Tisdall, M.D., P.A. d/b/a Spine & Joint Pain 

Specialists,

Appellants

v.

Thomas VAREBROOK and Rebecca Varebrook,

Appellees

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-CI-06007

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

We grant appellees' motion for extension of time to file their brief. We order appellees' 

brief due October 23, 2020.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 12th day of October, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GLENN FODOR.

February 28, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Brown and Blue Books, Red Hawk Rollout, Pegasus MilestonePublished May 13, 2022
                        
                        By Senior Airman Garrett Hess
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)  --**
                This week’s look Around the Air Force highlights the release of the Brown and Blue books, covering Core Values and Enlisted Force Structure, the new T-7A Red Hawk training aircraft rolls out, and the KC-46A Pegasus hits another milestone on the way to full operational capability. (Hosted by Staff Sgt. Benjamin Cooper)





For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:**- Revised ‘Brown, Blue Book’ released****- First T-7A Red Hawk rolls out****- KC-46A refuels first international aircraft during Employment Capability Exercise**Featured Video 



AFTV 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



Air Force 



AF 



Accelerate Change or Lose 



Blue Book 



Brown Book 



Air Education and Training Command 



Tuskegee Airmen 



KC-46A 



Spain 



Employment Combat Exercise