alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hugh M‘Keon *versus*David Lane.

A petition for a discovery, under the provisions of the revised statutes, (vol. 2, p. 199,) must present a proper case for the equitable interposition of the court, or it will be denied. And where the petitioner can have all the relief the nature of his case requires, by pursuing the ordinary practice of the courts of law, the power of compelling a discovery, conferred by the statute, will not be exercised.

This was a petition for a discovery, under the provisions of the revised statutes. The plaintiff brought an action of debt against the defendant, to recover of him the penalty of fifty dollars, [1 *R. L.*524, *sec.*20,] for not appearing as a witness in a certain cause, wherein M‘Keon was plaintiff, and one Caherty was defendant. It appeared by the petition of the plaintiff, (which was verified by affidavit,) that the *original subpoena*was served upon the defendant, instead of a copy; that the defendant *received*the original, retained it in his possession, and that the plaintiff had no copy in his possession, or under his control. He, therefore, prayed for an order to compel the defendant to deliver to him a sworn copy of the original, or to deposit it in the office of the clerk of this court, that he might take a copy, to be used as evidence at the trial of the cause.

*Mr. J. R.*Whiting, for the defendant, contended,

that he was not bound to answer, or make any discovery, which might subject him to a penalty. *[He cited,*1 *Pet. Rep.*100. 104. *Bishop v.*
      *521
      *Bishop, Tothill’s R.*17. M. 1638. *Cary v. Mildmay, Ib.*7. *Bridg. Eq. Dig. tit. Discovery, vol.*1. *p.*217.]

*Mr. D. Graham, contra,*for the plaintiff,

relied upon the statute. [2 *R. S.*199. 281. *He cited also, the 28th rule of the Supreme Court.*2 *Arch. Prac.*196. 3 *Anstr.*634.]

*Per Curiam.*

The statute upon which the plaintiff has brought his action, can hardly be considered as a penal one. If it were, this court, following the practice and adopting the principles of the Courts of Equity, would refuse to grant the prayer of the petition. But the act in question is to be viewed, rather as a remedial act, and we may grant the relief sought, if the petitioner has presented a proper case for our interposition. The courts of law are not *compelled,*by the provisions of the revised statutes, to grant relief upon all occasions, but they are clothed with a discretion, to be exercised according to circumstances.

In this case, the plaintiff can have all the relief he requires, by pursuing the usual practice. He may give the defendant notice to produce the subpoena at the trial, and if he refuse to do so, the plaintiff can then give secondary evidence of its contents. The prayer of this petition must, therefore, be denied ; but we deny it without costs, and wish it to be understood, that witnesses, who disobey the process of subpoena, must abide the conse. quences of their disobedience, and will not meet with any particular favor from the court.

*Prayer of the petition denied, without costs.*

[D. Graham, Jun., *Att’y for the plff.*J. R. Whiting, *Att’y for the deft.]*
#### Trinity University v. B. P. McFarland.

(No. 1230, Op. Book No. 3, p. —.)

Appeal from Limestone County.

Opinion by

Walker, R. S., P. J.

§ 1309. *Contract; rescission of ’;party seeking, must act promptly; acquiescence will bar right to rescind.*“A court of equity will not rescind a contract unless fraud appear, or there has been a plain and palpable mistake affecting the very substance of the subject matter of the contract. [5 Wait’s Act. & Def. 510.] Nor will equity interfere to rescind a contract where an adequate remedy at law exists. [121 Mass. 227; 22 Ark. 198.] A contract may be rescinded by the acts of the parties to it, without there being an express and formal agreement to that effect; “it may take place as the act of one party in consequence of a failure to perform by the other party; and it may take place on account of fraud, even though the contract be partially executed.” [2 Bouvier’s Law Die. 408.] If the contract is a fair and valid one, it will be enforced by either a specific performance of it, if, according to its nature and the facts of the case, that remedy *761may be applied; or, in case of failure to comply with.it, the party injured by the breach may recover damages for such breach. A rescission of it will not be decreed, however, because of such breach, but it will be enforced through the appropriate remedies according to the nature of the case. Where a party is entitled to rescind a contract, he must act promptly and not sleep on his rights, or take time to speculate on the course of events. If he goes on with a full knowledge of his rights, recognizing the contract as still in force, and by his acts and conduct tacitly gives his assent to its execution in a manner different from the original understanding of the parties, he is not entitled in equity to have either the contract rescinded or any relief inconsistent with what may fairly and reasonably be presumed from his own acts to have been assented to by him. [De Armand v. Phillips, Walk. (Mich.) Ch. 86; Kerr on Frauds, 298-9, 304; 5 Wait’s Act. & Def. 508; 51 Miss. 412; 40 Cal. 535; 75 Ill. 17; 2 Woods, 244; 7 W. Va. 273; 51 How. (N. Y.) 69.] This was an action brought by appellee to rescind a contract made with appellant. The contract was the purchase by appellee from appellant of a scholarship in the university, for which appellee paid $500. The grounds relied upon for rescission were: 1. That the $500 paid by appellee had been diverted to a different purpose than the one for which it was to be applied under the contract; and 2. That appellant had refused to receive a student offered by appellee under the contract. *Held,*that these grounds were insufficient to authorize a court to decree a rescission of the contract, and that the judgment of the court below to that effect was erroneous.

December 14, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 71 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4484]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ensign). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] is recognized for 5 
minutes.

  [Mr. MINETA addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in 
the Extensions of Remarks.]

                          ____________________
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LARRY WOLFORD.

March 14, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 99.8

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


                 RAMSAY YOUTH SERVICES, INC. AWARDED A JUVENILE
                           JUSTICE PROGRAM IN FLORIDA


CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA, FEBRUARY 7, 2000 . . . RAMSAY YOUTH SERVICES, INC.
(NASDAQ:RYOU) announced today that it has been awarded a contract by the Florida
Department of Juvenile Justice to operate a 100-bed residential commitment
program. The first phase of the contract is for a 50-bed female program, which
is scheduled to be operational by the end of March and will be housed at a newly
constructed Department facility in Palm Beach County, Florida. The contract is
for a term of 3 years and is expected to generate over $2.2 million in annual
revenue during phase one. The second phase of the contract calls for the
expansion of the program by an additional 50 beds, at a future date to be
determined by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice.

Commenting on the new contract, Luis E. Lamela, President and CEO of Ramsay
Youth Services, Inc. stated, "We look forward to working with the Florida
Department of Juvenile Justice in creating a model program that addresses the
gender-specific needs of females. Our organization is committed to serving
Florida's juvenile population with quality programs and services."

Ramsay Youth Services, Inc. is a leading quality provider andgmanager of
education, treatment and juvenile justice programs for at-risk youth. The
Company serves youth in 8 states and Puerto Rico.

Except for historical information contained herein, the matters set forth in
this news release are forward-looking statements as defined under the safe
harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties.
Actual operations and results may differ materially from those expected in the
forward looking statements made by the Company. Please refer to Ramsay's filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for additional information.



Contact:   Isa Diaz
           Vice President Corporate Relations
           (305) 569-4626
Exhibit 32.2
 
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Veritec, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Quentin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  ·
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  ·
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  
  /s/John Quentin
  John Quentin, Chief Financial Officer
  Date: May14, 2010
News United States Air Force
 DAF sets documentation requirements for pet travel expense reimbursementPublished Jan. 4, 2024
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                
                ***UPDATED JAN. 4, 2024*****ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS)--**The Department of the Air Force has established documentation requirements for Airmen and Guardians planning to request reimbursement pet travel expenses due to permanent change of station moves.
The Defense Travel Management Office **announced** a new policy to cover pet travel expenses, including pet transportation and quarantine fees, in June 2023.
Starting Jan. 1, 2024, service members can be reimbursed up to $550 in the continental U.S. for one household pet, either cat or dog, and up to $2,000 for moves to or from a location outside the continental U.S. to cover costs related to the transportation of a pet which is defined by the Joint Travel Regulations as a cat or dog.
Members can request reimbursement along with their PCS travel voucher, but they must meet eligibility requirements and include all required documentation. Documentation requirements include:

• Service members must be on PCS orders, and all travel and expenses must take place on or after Jan. 1, 2024.

• Members must provide receipts for all costs.

• Receipts must be itemized, indicate they are for one pet and include the name of the pet if possible (especially for specialized care the pet receives, such as vaccinations).

• If the pet is flying cargo because it exceeds the weight limit to travel via government or government-procured transportation, the receipt must include the weight of the pet.

• If a member self-procures a ticket at a location serviced by the Patriot Express, they must have a non-availability letter and appropriate remarks on their orders. Otherwise, the transportation portion of the reimbursement will be limited to the cost of shipping the pet via the Patriot Express. All documentation used to obtain a non-availability letter must be included when the member files their PCS travel voucher.
Costs eligible for reimbursement include mandatory microchipping, boarding fees, hotel service charges, licensing fees at the new primary duty station (PDS), and pet shipping fees if the member flies rather than drives or if the pet is shipped separately from the member.
For PCS to or between OCONUS moves, quarantine fees and testing titer level (antibodies) for entry are also eligible for reimbursement.
For more information, visit the DTMO **FAQs webpage** and the DAF **FAQs webpage**. In addition, please contact your local finance office if you need assistance with requesting reimbursement.FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



pets 



travel 



expenses 



Reimbursement 



documentation 



requirements 



change of station 



DTMO 



policy 



PCS 



Orders 



cat 



dog 



fur babies Related Links
        Pet Expense Reimbursement FAQs
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______

                          HON. J.C. WATTS, JR.

                              of oklahoma

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, May 15, 1995
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 324 and 328, I 
missed these votes on May 12 due to some important business in the 
District. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 324 and 
``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 328.

                          ____________________
```
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLICACCOUNTANTS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8, File No. 333-186566, which was effective on February 11, 2013 of ourreport dated April 14, 2014 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements which appear in the Annual Report onForm 10-K of Kaya Holdings, Inc.. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2014. Our report contains an explanatoryparagraph regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

 

We also consent to the reference to us underthe caption “Experts” in the Prospectus.

 

/s/ De Meo, Young, McGrath

A Goldstein, Schechter, Koch, P.A. Company

Fort Lauderdale, Florida

April 15, 2015
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12


                        BUFFINGTON HARBOR RIVERBOATS, LLC
     Second Amendment To The First Amended and Restated Operating Agreement


THIS AMENDMENT is executed by THE MAJESTIC STAR CASINO, LLC, an Indiana
corporation ("Majestic"), and TRUMP INDIANA, INC., a Delaware corporation
("Trump").

WHEREAS Majestic and Trump are the sole members (the "Members") of Buffington
Harbor Riverboats, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "LLC").

WHEREAS the LLC is governed by a First Amended and Restated Operating Agreement
as executed on October 31, 1995, and as amended on April 23, 1996 (the
"Agreement"), constituting a limited liability company agreement under the
Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the "Act").

NOW, THEREFORE, the Members, acting pursuant to the Agreement and Act, hereby
amend Section 3.5 by the addition of two new subsections that shall (i)
immediately follow Subsection 3.5(c), (ii) be designated as Subsections 3.5(d)
and 3.5(e), and (iii) read in their entirety as follows:

          (d) Without limiting the scope of the foregoing provisions of this
          Section 3.5, but subject to Subsection 3.5(e), the LLC shall indemnify
          and hold harmless each beneficiary referenced in Subsection 3.5(c) in
          the event, and to the extent, that third-party recourse against the
          particular beneficiary would have been unavailable to the claimant in
          the absence of the Limited Agency Agreement to be executed by
          Majestic, Trump and the LLC.

          (e) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 3.5, no
          rights under this Section 3.5 shall be invoked if the relevant claim
          or liability stems from duties solely performed for, and also arises
          on premises owned and operated by, a person other than the LLC.

EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT recited in this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain
unchanged.

THIS AMENDMENT (a) shall be governed by and interpreted and enforced according
to Delaware law, and (b) shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of, and
be enforceable by, the Members, the other persons referenced in Subsection 3.5
of the Agreement, and their respective successors.

THE PARTIES HERETO have executed this Amendment on this first day of December
2000.

THE MAJESTIC STAR CASINO, LLC.              TRUMP INDIANA, INC.
By:  Barden Development, Inc., Manager

By:_____________________________            By:___________________________
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JAMES EDWARD BATES,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00183-CR 

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 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Stopping the Swarm, We Are All Recruiters, Accommodations PortalPublished May 26, 2023
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Milton Hamilton
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                In this week’s look around the Air Force, high power microwave transmissions take down a swarm of drones in a simulated attack, the We Are All Recruiters program gets Airmen and Guardians into communities to talk about career opportunities, and a new accommodations portal simplifies procedures for civilians and servicemembers. (Hosted by Tech. Sgt. Eric Mann)

02:00


**Watch on DVIDS | Watch on YouTube**
For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.AF 



Air Force 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



AFTV Related Links
        AFRL conducts swarm technology demonstration
            
            WEAR program enables Airmen, Guardians to aid recruiting efforts
            
            DAF develops reasonable, religious accommodation requests appeals portal
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Microbics, Inc., (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert C.
Brehm, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d)
of the Securities and 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/ Conrad Nagel
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Conrad Nagel
                                        Principal Accounting Officer

                                        March 13, 2006
#### DEWS CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. BANK BUILDING ASSOCIATES.

April 18, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000772320
<NAME> CASMYN CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  8301
<PP&E>                                           21000 
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1193
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   29657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2939
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        108
<COMMON>                                          8733
<OTHER-SE>                                       17855
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     29657
<SALES>                                           3441 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3441 
<CGS>                                             2509 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2659
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  7026
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (738)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (8753)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (8753)  
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (8753)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.24)
        



</TABLE>
Converted by EDGARwiz


Lease Agreement

This lease agreement is between Navjot Nanda ( the “Landlord”) and DNA Testing Centers, Corp.( the “Tenant”), a Florida corporation and made on October 1, 2014.

The Landlord grants the right to the tenant to occupy one area of the office, situated at 2378 Parkhaven Blvd. Oakville Ontario Canada (the “Premises”) on a month to month basis.




The area of the office is that the tenant can occupy is the outer office and open space area immediately adjacent to the main office. It comprises up to 1400 sq ft. Tenant shall have use of conference room as needed. 




Rent shall include all utilities.




The desk and other office equipment remains the property of the Landlord and the Tenant is responsible for replacing any damaged equipment with a like for like replacement.  

Tenant shall not be required to pay a deposit but shall reimburse Landlord for any damage to the Premises.




Tenant and Landlord must give one another 30 days notice to terminate this lease.




The Tenant shall pay the Landlord the sum of $1000 each calendar month for the use of the office during the Term.




The Landlord agrees to waive the right to be paid on the first day of each calendar month until such time as the Tenant has established the operation to which it is developing.







/s/ Navjot Nanda

By: Navjot Nanda, Landlord

DNA Testing Centers Corp.

/s/ Navjot Nanda

By: Navjot Nanda, Landlord