alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 13,769.

#### Taylor et al. *v.*Williams.

Attachment and *Gabnishment.*— Promissory *Note.*— Bona *Fide Endorsee. —Agreement to Repay Garnishee Maher.*— An agreement by an attachment plaintiff that if a garnishee defendant will pay the amount of the judgment rendered against him he will repay the amount, with interest, attorney’s fees and costs, in case the note evidencing the garnishee’s indebtedness to the attachment defendant is afterwards enforced against him by a *bona fide*endorsee, is valid and enforceable.

*Same.*— Evidence.—In such case the record of the attachment proceedings, the record of the endorsee’s judgment, and the declarations of the attachment plaintiff are admissible in evidence.

*Evidence.*— Erroneous *Admission.*— Harmless *Error.*— The erroneous admission of evidence is only available for reversal when prejudicial to the rights of the appellant.

From the Greene Circuit Court.

*J. 8. Bays,*for appellants.

Elliott, C. J.

The material facts pleaded as the cause of action may be thus stated: The appellants instituted proceedings in attachment.against Moses Archer, and summoned the appellee as garnishee. Judgment was rendered against the appellee, but the justice of the peace by whom it was rendered had no jurisdiction, and the proceedings were void. The indebtedness of the appellee' to Archer was evidenced by a promissory note, which had been assigned to Charlotte Bivens before the proceedings were instituted, but the appellee had no knowledge of this fact. The appellants promised the appellee that if he would pay the judgment they would repay him the amount, with interest, attorney’s fees and costs, provided he should be compelled to pay the amount of the note to any other person, and he, relying upon this promise, did pay the judgment. The money paid was received by the appellants. After the payment of the judgment awarded the appellants, Charlotte Bivens, the assignee *415of the note, obtained judgment against .the appellee and he was compelled to pay it. ( •

Filed Sept. 28, 1889;

petition for a rehearing overruled Dec. 10, 1889.

The complaint is good. The contract of the appellants is founded on a valid consideration, and we can perceive no reason why it should not be enforced. They have money in their hands which in equity belongs to the appellee, and we incline to the opinion that the action would lie even if there had been no express promise, but it is not necessary to decide whether an action would lie if there had been no such promise, for there was a valid contract.

The trial court erred in permitting Mr. Short to testify as to a conversation he had with the appellee, but it is quite clear that the testimony was not of such a nature as to prejudice the appellants. There was not, at all events, such a material error as will justify us in reversing the judgment.

Thej'e was no error in admitting in evidence the record of the attachment proceedings, nor was there error in admitting the record of the judgment in the action brought by Char- ■ lotte Bivens against the appellee. The trial court did right in permitting the appellee to prove the declarations of the appellants.

Judgment affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices 

# Order

July 30, 2010

139807(92)

ADRIANA LEE, Personal Representative of the Estate of RUFUS YOUNG, JR., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139807 COA: 282268 Wayne CC: 04-438626-NO DETROIT MEDICAL CE NTER, CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, DR. ALHM MAHBOBUL HUQ, and DR. JAYSHREE RAO, Defendants-Appellants,

and

DR. VINCE TRUONG, Defendant-Appellee,

and

LIFE SPAN CLINICAL SERVICES, KRISTIN RYESON DZAHRISTOS, TARA HALL, JENNIFER WRAYNO, BARBARA FRIEDEL, and FAY FLUELLEN, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s March 26, 2010 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

C ORRIGAN

, J., would grant the motion for reconsid eration and states as follows: The defendants raise jurisprudentially signifi cant questions concerning the correctness of the Court of Appeals decision in this case, as I explained in my di ssent to this Court’s March 26, 2010 order denying the application for leave to appeal.

Y OUNG

, J., would grant the motion for reconsid eration for the reasons set forth in

Justice C ORRIGAN ’s dissenting statement in this case, 485 Mich 1121 (2010).I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 30, 2010

d0727 2

M ARKMAN , J., would grant the motion for rec onsideration, and grant leave to appeal, for the reasons set forth in his disse nting statement in this case, 485 Mich 1122 (2010).
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11175 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JESSE JAMES DIMAS Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CR-31-ALL Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing theJudgment in a Criminal Case, JesseJames Dimas presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir. 1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir. 2006), which held that a district court may order a term ofimprisonment torun consecutively with an unimposed state United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 4, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-11175

2 sentence. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States District Judge for the **

Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SEGUN WALDRON, AKA Patrick

Miller,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50435

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01271-DSF-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 29, 2011

Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG, District

Judge.** 

Segun Waldron appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress

evidence obtained as a result of a search of his vehicle, a black H2 Hummer. 

FILED

SEP 09 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Following the denial of his motion, Waldron entered a conditional guilty plea to

possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

and (b)(1)(A), but reserved the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. 

We affirm.

“Under the automobile exception . . . police may conduct a warrantless

search of a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains

evidence of a crime.” United States v. Brooks, 610 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.

2010). “Probable cause to search is evaluated in light of the totality of the

circumstances.” Id. at 1193–94 (quoting United States v. Pinela-Hernandez, 262

F.3d 974, 978 (9th Cir. 2001)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The

investigating agents drew upon multiple sources to establish probable cause to

search Waldron’s vehicle. They had information from a reliable confidential

informant that the Hummer contained contraband. See United States v. Elliott, 322

F.3d 710, 715–16 (9th Cir. 2003). The information was corroborated by both

innocent and suspicious circumstances indicating the presence of contraband. The

agents ran a trained narcotics dog around the exterior of the Hummer before

searching the vehicle, and the dog gave a positive alert—indicating that it smelled

narcotics. See United States v. Cedano-Arellano, 332 F.3d 568, 573 (9th Cir.

2003). 
3

Based on the totality of the circumstances—the corroborated confidential

informant, the dog alert, and Waldron’s suspicious behavior—the district court

correctly found that there was probable cause to believe that Waldron’s Hummer

contained evidence of drug trafficking. See Brooks, 610 F.3d at 1193-94. 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I, Lawrence P. Ward, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Heritage Oaks Bancorp;
 
 2. 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;
 
 3. 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;
 
 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d -15(e) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
 to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b) Intentionally Left Blank
 
 c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);
 
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 
 
 Date: April 23, 2004
 /s/ Lawrence P. Ward
 Lawrence P. Ward
 Chief Executive Officer
No. 2013AP1485

- D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disci plinary Proceedings

Against Amoun Vang Sayaovong, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

Complainant,

v.

Amoun Vang Sayaovong,

Respondent. 

## FILED

NOV 18 , 2014

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ERRATA SHEET

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that corrections were made to paragraph

17 and footnote 5 in the above

- captioned opinion which was

released on July 30, 2014. A corrected electronic version in

its entirety is available on the court's website at

www.wicourts.gov.No. 2013AP1485

- D

1
584 A.2d 216

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JESUS L. KING.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
/**
 * @file
 * Colorbox Style JS.
 */

(function ($) {

Drupal.behaviors.initColorboxDefaultStyle = {
  attach: function (context, settings) {
    $(context).bind('cbox_complete', function () {
      // Only run if there is a title.
      if ($('#cboxTitle:empty', context).length == false) {
        $('#cboxLoadedContent img', context).bind('mouseover', function () {
          $('#cboxTitle', context).slideDown();
        });
        $('#cboxOverlay', context).bind('mouseover', function () {
          $('#cboxTitle', context).slideUp();
        });
      }
      else {
        $('#cboxTitle', context).hide();
      }
    });
  }
};

})(jQuery);
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Samuel B. Hay, III, Chief Executive Officer of Main Street
Banks, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |     |  |                                            
|----------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: May 9, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ SAMUEL B. HAY, III                     
|                  |  |     |  | Samuel B. Hay, III, Chief Executive Officer
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 MITY Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Paul R. Killpack, 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:

     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.


Date: October 28, 2004                  /s/ Paul R. Killpack
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Paul R. Killpack
                                        Chief Financial Officer
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-5 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and
 
 5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Xerox Education Services, LLC, as subservicer, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.
 
  
 
  
 /s/ SOMSAK CHIVAVIBUL
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 Amended Quarterly Report of Power-Save Energy Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Forster, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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

















/s/Michael Forster


By: Michael Forster


Chief Executive Officer





Dated: December 23, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-1549, -1550 ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants-Appellees, and KALI LABORATORIES, INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.,

and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,

Defendants, CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES, LTD., Defendant-Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in case nos.

04-CV-886 and 06-CV-3533, Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh.

ON MOTION Before MOORE, Circuit Judge. ORDER Upon consideration of Apotex, Inc.'s motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in support of the appellees, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted.FOR THE COURT



# MAR 2 0 2009 Date

cc: Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Esq. John L. North, Esq. James F. Hurst, Esq. Arnold B. Calmann, Esq. Steven E. Feldman, Esq. s19 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT MAR 2 0 2009 JIUVHORSALY CLERK

2008-1549, -1550 2
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Helaine M. Kaplan, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report onForm 10-K of the COMM 2014-CCRE19 Mortgage Trust (the "Exchange Actperiodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, takenas a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing andother information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilledtheir obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesrequired to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 ofRegulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Anymaterial instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank,National Association, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, asOperating Advisor, Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank, asPrimary Servicer, Computershare Trust Company, National Association, asServicing Function Participant for the Certificate Administrator, andComputershare Trust Company, National Association, as Servicing FunctionParticipant for the Custodian.

 

 

 

Dated:March 14, 2023

 

 

/s/ Helaine M. Kaplan

Helaine M. Kaplan

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 849 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 849

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 6, 2017

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To repeal the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
       Act providing for the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

    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 ``Protecting Seniors Access to 
Medicare Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVISORY BOARD.

    Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), sections 3403 and 10320 of 
such Act (including the amendments made by such sections) are repealed, 
and any provision of law amended by such sections is hereby restored as 
if such sections had not been enacted into law.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 2, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```