alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### S. W. McGrady v. W. N. McRae, Guardian, etc.

(No. 1292, Op. Book No. 2, p. 270.)

Appeal from Fannin County.

Opinion by

Walker, R. S., P. J.

§ 1036. *Tenants in common; rents; rule and remedy as to.*It seems to be well settled that one tenant in common cannot maintain an action at law against his co-tenant for his part of the issues and profits of the common property, where there is no special agreement between them to account for the same. Each tenant is entitled to the occupation of the premises; neither can exclude the other, and if the sole occupation by one co-tenant could render him liable to the other, it would be in the power of the latter, by voluntarily remaining out of possession, to keep out his companion also, except upon the condition of the payment of rent. The enjoyment of the absolute legal right of one co-tenant would thus often be dependent upon the indolence or caprice of the other. *584[Pico v. Columbet, 12 Cal. 419; 5 Bac. Ab. 361; Freeman on Co-tenancy & Part. 269.J If one co-tenant occupies and enjoys the premises, to the exclusion of another, the-remedy of the latter is not by a suit for his share of the-rents, but by a suit for partition; and as incident to that an account could be had, to settle, according to the principles of equity, the fair share of each in the proceeds- and-profits of the premises. If a suit for one co-tenant’s-proportionate share of rent was permitted each year, as the’ rent accrued, it might result in the recovery of more than the fair share of the profits, leaving the tenants in possession to bear all the expenses of the care, preservation and amelioration of the property, when the plaintiff may already, in the past, have been the recipient of the much larger portion of its benefits. Accordingly, this suit being by one co-tenant of land against others in possession, to recover his proportionate share of the rents of the land, it was held that he had no cause of action.

February 19, 1881.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23849]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Member Conflict: Ethical, Legal, and Social Research.
    Date: September 27, 2010.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Richard A. Currie, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1108, MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 435-1219, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e88b9d9a9a818d9a81a88b9b9ac6868180c68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="22415750504b47504b624151500c4c4b4a0c454d54">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 16, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-23849 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

                                  VERITEC, INC.

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

     The undersigned, Van Tran, the Chief Executive Officer and Gerald Fors, the
Chief Financial Officer of Veritec, Inc. (the "Company"), individually, has
executed this Certification in connection with the filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report").

     The undersigned hereby certifies that:

     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 results of operations
          of the Company as of March 31, 2006 (the last day of the period
          covered by this Report).

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certification as of
the 14 day of November, 2006.


                                        /s/ Van Thuy Tran
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Van Thuy Tran, Chief Executive Officer


                                        /s/ Gerald Fors
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Gerald Fors, Chief Financial Officer


                                       21
583 A.2d 322

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM LEWIS.

February 14, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### LARRY PELLETIER *v.*DAVID ROMAINE ET AL.

(AC 23520)

Schaller, Dranginis and Bishop, Js.

Submitted on briefs June 11

officially released July 8, 2003

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
News United States Air Force
 Yesterday’s Air Force: Archie WilliamsPublished Aug. 29, 2016
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Traci Keller
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** – As an Olympic gold medalist and command pilot, Lt. Col. Archie Williams proved time and again his skill, discipline and determination were among the best.
Yesterday's Air Force is a history and heritage featurette series profiling significant people and missions from the Air Force's past.Olympics 



YAF 



heritage 



Archie Williams 



Tuskegee Airman
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1298 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require persons 

conducting Federal election polls by telephone to disclose certain information to respondents and the Federal Election Commission. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2007 

Mr. PETRI (for himself, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. 

KIND, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. HOLDEN, and Mr. FORTENBERRY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 

require persons conducting Federal election polls by telephone to disclose certain information to respondents and 

the Federal Election Commission. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Push Poll Disclosure 

5 Act of 2007’’. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1298 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE AND REPORTS RELATING TO POLLING 

2 BY TELEPHONE OR ELECTRONIC DEVICE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Federal Election 

4 Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended 

5 by adding at the end the following new section: 

6 ‘‘DISCLOSURE AND REPORTS RELATING TO POLLING BY

7 TELEPHONE OR ELECTRONIC DEVICE

8 ‘‘SEC. 325. (a) DISCLOSURE TO RESPONDENTS.— 

9 Any person who conducts a Federal election poll by tele10 phone or electronic device shall disclose to each respondent 

11 the identity of the person paying the expenses of the poll. 

12 The disclosure shall be made at the end of the interview 

13 involved. 

14 ‘‘(b) REPORTS TO COMMISSION.—In the case of any 

15 Federal election poll by telephone or electronic device— 

16 ‘‘(1) if the results are not to be made public, 

17 the person who conducts the poll shall report to the 

18 Commission the total cost of the poll and all sources 

19 of funds for the poll; and 

20 ‘‘(2) the person who conducts the poll shall re21 port to the Commission the total number of house22 holds contacted and include with such report a copy 

23 of the poll questions. 

24 ‘‘(c) FEDERAL ELECTION POLL DEFINED.—As used 

25 in this section, the term ‘Federal election poll’ means a 

26 survey— 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1298 IH

1 ‘‘(1) in which the respondent is asked to state 

2 opinions or views regarding a future election for 

3 Federal office; and 

4 ‘‘(2) in which more than 1,200 households are 

5 surveyed.’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to elections occur8 ring after December 31, 2007. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION S FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: LG Chem America, Inc. and LG Chem, Ltd. v. Tommy

Morgan

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00 665

- CV

Trial court case number: 100728

- CV

Trial court: 239 th District Court of Brazoria County

Date motion s filed: February 12 , 2021

Parties filing motions: Appellants LG Chem America, Inc. and LG Chem, Ltd.

It is ordered that the appellants’ motion s for rehearing are denied

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49. 1 , 49.3

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Julie Countiss

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Hightower and Countiss

.

Date: October 7, 2021
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09
- 16
- 00 102
- CV



### _________________

IN RE ELIZABETH SMITH

________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 172nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. E
- 197802

________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
Elizabeth Smith , Relator, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking relief from the trial court’s order requiring her claims to be arbitrated

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1

. In her petition, Relator contends the trial court abused its discretion by compelling arbitration of her claim for legal malpractice based on a pr ovision in a legal services agreement provid ing for arbitration. Smith ask s this Court to compel the trial court to withdra w its order c ompell ing arbitration. After reviewing the petition for writ of mandamus and the mandamus record that accompanied the

pe tition , we conclude that Smith ha s not shown that she is entitled to mandamus2 relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

- 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) ; Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 8 39

- 40 (Tex. 1992). We deny the petition seeking mandamus relief

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 20, 2016 Opinion Delivered April 21, 2016 Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
583 A.2d 345

#### DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES v. MICHAEL J. ARNONE.

March 26, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 2 9, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00819

- CR

Denys A. MARTINEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR12834

The Honorable Jennifer Pena, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The

appellant's brief is due on or before May 26, 2020.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

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

court on this 29th day of April, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz

, Clerk of Court
V 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1220 

For the relief of Michael Dvorkin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2007 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Michael Dvorkin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF, OR 

4 DENIAL OF ADMISSION TO, MICHAEL 

5 DVORKIN. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections 212(a) 

7 and 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Mi8 chael Dvorkin may not be removed from the United States 

9 or denied admission to the United States by reason of any 

10 criminal offense that is reflected in the records of the De11 partment of Homeland Security, or the Visa Office of the 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 1220 IH

1 Department of State, on the date of the enactment of this 

2 Act. 

3 (b) RESCISSION OF OUTSTANDING ORDER OF RE4 MOVAL.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall re5 scind any outstanding order of removal, or any finding of 

6 inadmissibility, that has been entered against Michael 

7 Dvorkin by reason of any offense described in subsection 

8 (a). Any such offense shall not be taken into account in 

9 determining whether Michael Dvorkin is eligible to receive 

10 a visa or whether the status of Michael Dvorkin may be 

11 adjusted to that of an alien lawfully admitted to the 

12 United States for permanent residence. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1019 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1019

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To designate the United States customhouse building located at 31 
  Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as the ``Rafael 
          Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States customhouse building located at 31 Gonzalez 
Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States customhouse building 
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 26, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1019

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To designate the United States customhouse building located at 31 
  Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as the ``Rafael 
          Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          RECOGNIZING CHANDA RUBIN, PROFESSIONAL TENNIS PLAYER

  (Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, today I take special pride in 
recognizing a very outstanding constituent of mine. She is a 19-year-
old professional tennis player from Lafayette, LA. I speak of no other 
than Chanda Rubin, daughter of Judge and Mrs. Edward D. Rubin.
  I am proud to say that Chanda Rubin just completed her best ever 
grand slam performance at the French Open. Although Chanda fell short 
to the defending champion in the quarterfinals yesterday, she proved to 
be a tough fighter. Her courage has touched the lives of many 
individuals, particularly young people, across this Nation. I commend 
Chanda for her hard work and I wish her the best of luck in the future.

                          ____________________
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GLENDON PENDER.

January 17, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

  Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from 
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

       909. A letter from the Under Secretary, Department of 
     Defense, transmitting the defense environmental quality 
     program annual report to Congress for fiscal year 1994, 
     pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2706(b)(1); to the Committee on 
     National Security.
       910. A communication the President of the United States, 
     transmitting his follow-up report on the deployment of United 
     States combat-equipped aircraft to support NATO's enforcement 
     of the no-fly zone in Bosnia and Herzegovina (H. Doc. No. 
     104-79); to the Committee on International Relations and 
     ordered to be printed.
     

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 10.43

                                October 16, 2003

Via Facsimile & Regular Mail
Gary L. Blum, Esquire
3278 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 603
Los Angles, CA 90010

         Re:      Stock Purchase Agreement between Kazi Management VI,
                  Inc. ("Kazi") and USA Technologies, Inc.
                  ("USA") dated October 26, 2002 (the "Agreement")

Dear Mr. Blum:

         We represent USA and are in receipt of your letter to George R. Jensen,
Jr., dated  September 26, 2003. In your letter,  you indicate that Kazi is due 8
months of "penalty" securities (with additional amounts anticipated) pursuant to
paragraph 6 of the Agreement. As we indicated in our earlier conversation, under
Pennsylvania  law,  paragraph 6 of the  Agreement  is an  unenforceable  penalty
clause and is void.  Therefore,  no "penalty"  securities are due to Kazi by USA
under paragraph 6 of the Agreement.

         Pennsylvania  law  upholds  liquidated  damages  only  when  it can "be
inferred that parties intended a sum agreed to be paid upon breach of a contract
as liquidated  damages  whenever the damages are  uncertain,  and not capable of
being ascertained by any satisfactory rule." Malone v. City of Philadelphia, 147
Pa. 416, 23 A. 628, 421 (1892). Conversely, "[w]here a stipulated damages clause
is intended as a form of  punishment  with the purpose,  in terrorem,  to secure
compliance,  the principles of compensation  are  subordinated and the provision
must fail as an unenforceable penalty." Hanrahan v. Audubon Builders,  Inc., 418
Pa.Super.  497,  614 A.2d 748, 502 (1992);  Holt's Cigar  Company v. 222 Liberty
Associates,  et al., 404  Pa.Super.  578, 591 A.2d 743, 587,  (1991).  See In re
Plywood  Company of  Pennsylvania,  425 F.2d 151,  155 (3d Cir.  1970).  We have
attached copies of the relevant cases.

<PAGE>

         Under Pennsylvania law, paragraph 6 is void because it does not provide
nor was it ever  intended to provide a  reasonable  pre-estimate  of the damages
sustained  by  Kazi,  if any,  by the  delay  in the  filing  of a  registration
statement or a delay in having the Registration  Statement  declared  effective.
The  damages,  if any,  suffered  by  Kazi  could  be  easily  ascertained  thus
eliminating the need for stipulated  damages.  The 3% monthly penalty imposed by
paragraph 6 is intended to punish USA for any delay and serves no other purpose.

         Please  contact me with any further  questions  you may have  regarding
this letter.

                                                     Sincerely,


                                                     /s/ Douglas M. Lurio
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                         Douglas M. Lurio

Enclosures
cc: George R. Jensen, Jr. (w/o encl.)
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


             CERTIFICATION SOLELY TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Renal Care Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify solely to comply with Section 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)
                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

        2.      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of
                operations of the Company.



/s/ Sam A. Brooks, Jr.
---------------------------------
Sam A. Brooks, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002



/s/ R. Dirk Allison
---------------------------------
R. Dirk Allison
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002