alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mary Carter *v.*John H. Mason, Guardian.

Amended Petition — Notice of Filing.

A party defendant, presumed to be in court, has constructive notice of an amended petition.

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

October 3, 1866.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

We perceive no elror to the infant’s prejudice, and both he and his guardian seem content.

In resting, as the appellant did, on the sale of the infant’s undivided fourth in the town house and lot, *she*has no right to complain that the Circuit Court so decreed.

Nor has Wilson any available ground for his cross-appeal. As he was a party defendant presumed to be in court, he had constructive notice of the amended petition, and, moreover, had he answered the amendment, this court can neither know nor presume that he would have urged a sale of the entire property of all the joint owners.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed on both the original and the cross-appeal.
Tracking Number: 2010-02-06 (EPOC-02) 

No Budget for NASA Headquarters Public Affairs 

NASA Advisory Council Recommendation: 

The Council recommends that the NASA Office of Communications ( fonncrly, Office of 

Public Affairs) and Office of Education be funded at a level proportionate and appropriate to its 

mission, goals, and objectives in engaging the public. 

MaJor Reasons for the Recommendation: 

The Public Affairs budget in Washington has been zeroed out for several years forcing the 

department to operate on non-appropriated money. 

NASA Response: 

As a point of clarification, management notes that NASA Headquarters Public Affairs Office 

had in recent years been administered without its own budget, other than for personnel, with 

appropriated funds budgeted for other offices. We assume this is what the Council means to 

refer to in its reference to "non-appropriated" money. Subject to this clarification, NASA 

concurs with this recommendation. In recent years, Agency communications activities have 

remained at a minimal core level as a result of directed reductions. The Office of 

Communications has implemented and maintained programs of the highest quality to discharge 

NASA's statutory mission to disseminate information about NASA programs to the widest 

degree practical, including NASA Television and NASA's Web site at http:iiwww.nasa.gov, 

both of which have received the highest recognition by industry peers. However, the lack of a 

fonnal communications budget undermines long-tenn and strategic planning, which is fm1her 

obscured by the use of Mission Directorate resources to support outreach activities. 

The above being said, it is possible that legislative efforts to establish an appropriate central 

Office of Communications budget in these fiscally austere times may generate perceptual 

issues. Accordingly, the Associate Administrator for Communications and the Associate 

Administrator for Legislative and [ntergovemmcntal Affairs have been tasked to jointly 

consider these issues and report to the Office of the Administrator with their recommendations. 

Enclosure
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40498 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus RODOLFO SALDIVAR-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-95-CR-11
- - - - - - - - - - March 1, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant appeals from his guilty plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He contends that the district court erred in declining to depart below the statutory mandatory minimum sentence under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. We have reviewed the record and the district court's oral ruling and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Samuel J. POWELL, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-10413.

D.C. No. CR-01-00171-SI.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2003.

Davina Pujari, USSF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Samuel J. Powell, pro se, Dublin, CA, Brendan Conroy, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Samuel J. Powell appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 150-month sentence for witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1) and (b)(3). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Powell’s counsel has filed a brief stating that he finds no meritorious issues for review, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our examination of the brief and our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no arguable issues for review on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and, in light of the valid appeal waiver, the appeal is DISMISSED. *See United States v. Nunez,*223 F.3d 956, 959 (9th Cir.2000).

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 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 Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Garrett Thornburg, Chief Executive 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. /s/ Garrett ThornburgGarrett ThornburgChief Executive OfficerNovember 8, 2004
 67
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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

The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 of Sport
Chalet, Inc. (the "Company") fully complied with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in such report.



/s/   CRAIG L. LEVRA
-----------------------------------
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President




/s/   HOWARD K. KAMINSKY
-----------------------------------
Executive Vice President-Finance,
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary



                                       1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      5,014,345
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      2,050,501
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                              100,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            1,085,200
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                26,050,140
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     18,816,975
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       18,841,023
<LOANS>                                   110,632,365
<ALLOWANCE>                                   846,095
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            165,548,869
<DEPOSITS>                                137,401,924
<SHORT-TERM>                                8,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         1,656,195
<LONG-TERM>                                   691,769
<COMMON>                                    4,881,395
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                 12,416,886
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>            165,548,869
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             4,780,783
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           1,471,669
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               85,020
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            6,337,472
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          3,254,719
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          3,514,498
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       2,822,974
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                 135,927
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              8,877
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             1,831,569
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             1,323,721
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  1,323,721
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  789,427
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.71    
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.62
<LOANS-NON>                                         0
<LOANS-PAST>                                  327,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                             1,300,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              710,168
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       0
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             846,095
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                          295,808
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                       550,287
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 7222]

Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis to find that the relevant circumstances described in section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter “INA”) (8 U.S.C. 1189), exist with respect to Jundallah, also known as People's Resistance Movement of Iran (PMRI), also known as Jonbesh-i Moqavemat-i-Mardom-i Iran, also known as The Popular Resistance Movement of Iran, also known as Soldiers of God, also known as Fedayeen-e-Islam, also known as Former Jundallah of Iran, also known as Jundullah, also known as Jondullah, also known as Jundollah, also known as Jondollah, also known as Jondallah, also known as Army of God (God's Army) and also known as the Baloch Peoples Resistance Movement (BPRM).

Therefore, I hereby designate the aforementioned organization and its aliases as a Foreign Terrorist Organization pursuant to section 219 of the INA.

                    This determination shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: October 21, 2010.

Hillary Rodham Clinton,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2010-27785 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
#### Hutti *v.*Fillion.

Affidavit as Evidence.

Where an affidavit is not excepted to the court must regard it as evidence.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

February 19, 1866.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters:

There appears upon the face of the master’s report a credit to appellee for $450.60 paid to George Young and *"Receipt No.*14’'’ is referred to by the master as the voucher upon which the ere Jit is allowed. Upon an examination of that “ Receipt No. 14 ” it is found to be the receipt of one *Long,*his Christian name so badly written as not to be legible, for $352.35 due him personally and $98.25 due his son, John Long, which two sums correspond in amount precisely with the credit given to appellee as having lx-vn paid to George Young.

From the affidavit of George Schuler it appears that he was one of the arbitrators who made an award between these parties, and when that award was made, the parties held a note on Adam *Demhold*perhaps (for that name is so badly written as to be illegible), payable to them as a firm for $466.73, and that it was then agreed by said Hutti & Fillion, that the latter should take said note and pay off and satisfy the debts which the firm owed to George Long and his son, John Long.

Besides appellee on the 18th of January, 1865, made an affidavit in the case in which he states that for one-half of a debt on Adam *"Darmschott ”*if it is correctly copied (for it is too badly copied in the record to inspire any confidence that it is correctly written here) amounting to some $400 he will account to plaintiff Hutti; but that he is entitled to a credit for between $100 and $105 with interest paid by him to Hagan for stone delivered.

The affidavit of Schuler was not excepted to and we must regard it, therefore, as evidence, and notwithstanding that evidence, corroborated as it is by appellee’s own affidavit, he was credited by the full amount paid to Young, which should have been Long, and is not charged with the amount of the note on *Demhold,*if that be the name, or any part thereof. Exceptions were filed to *388bis report by appellant but they were overruled by the court, and the amount reported by the master as due to appellee was decreed to him, which was palpably erroneous.

If the debt paid to Young (Long & Son it should be) was credited to appellee, he should have been charged with the same amount for the note on Adam Demhold. And if appellee holds a debt on appellant for money paid to Hagan, he should have proved it.

The only error which we perceive is the failure to charge appellee with the debt on *Demhold,*as he was credited with the payment to Young, or Longs. Deducting from the $1,642.16 the amount of appellee’s credits, the above $480.60 will leave $1,191.56, the one-half of which is $595.78, and for that sum a judgment should have been rendered in favor of Fillion against Hutti with interest from the 7th of April, 1865, till paid, that being the date of the master’s report, less Hutti’s costs.

For the error named, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Record condemned.
#### Cohee *v.*Cooper.

A plea of usury must aver that the agreement was corruptly made.

A plea to a suit on a promissory note, that the note was given on a fraudulent and usurious consideration, is good on general demurrer.

In such suit, fraud and usury may be given in evidence under the general issue.

A judgment for the plaintiff in a suit tried on the general issue, will not be reversed merely because a demurrer to a special plea was erroneously sustained, if the matter specially pleaded was admissible evidence under the general issue.

ERROR to the *Carroll*Circuit Court.

Perkins, J.

Assumpsit by the assignee against the maker of promissory notes. The declaration contains two counts each describing a note, and which are alike except in the manner of alleging the assignment. There are four pleas: 1. The general issue; 2. A plea to the first count, which states that before the making of the jpj^te therein declared on, to wit, &c., the defendant made his certain other note in writing promising to pay the plaintiff, twelve months after date, two hundred and fifty dollars; that afterwards, the defendant took up that note and gave for it the note sued on for three hundred dollars; that the said first note for two hundred and fifty dollars, with interest at six *per cent, per annum,*did not amount, at the time of making the said second note, to three hundred dollars; and that the said second note, the one sued on, was given for the first and for no other consideration whatever; wherefore he says it is usurious and void. The fourth plea is like the second, and is only to the second count. *116These special pleas were demurred to and the demurrers correctly sustained. To constitute a good plea of usury, it must contain the averment that the alleged usurious agreement was corruptly made. 3 Chitt. PI. .966, and notes. These pleas contain no such averment, and are therefore bad. They are also otherwise defective. The third plea is to both counts, and avers that the plaintiff ought not to maintain his action, “because he (the defendant) says that said notes in said declaration mentioned were given upon a fraudulent and usurious consideration.” To this plea there was a general demurrer, which was also sustained, and final judgment given by the Court, on trial upon 'the general issue, for the amount of the note, interest, and costs.

*H. P. Biddle,*for the plaintiff. *I>. D. Pratt,*for the defendant.

The Court erred in sustaining this demurrer. The plea demurred to is objectionable for duplicity, and for that cause •subject to special demurrer; but on general demurrer, a general plea of fraud or usury is good. 4 Blackf. 238. This is substantially, though very informally, such a plea. But this error of the Court will not reverse the case. Fraud and usury may be given in evidence under the general issue, and as that plea was filed it must, according to the case of *Shanklin*v. *Cooper,*at the present term, be presumed they were so given as far as they existed.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with^costs.
Exhibit 12.1

                            AES Eastern Energy, L.P.
             Statement Regarding Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                      (In Thousands, Except Ratio Amounts)

                                                        Period From May 14,
                                                        1999 (Inception) to
                                                           Dec. 31, 1999
                                                      -------------------------

Income from Continuing Operations                                      $24,415

Add:  Fixed Charges                                                     38,906
Add:  Amortization of Capitalized Interest                                  95
Less:  Interest Capitalized                                             (5,187)
                                                      -------------------------

Earnings                                                                58,229
                                                      -------------------------

Fixed Charges:
Add:  Interest expense and capitalized amounts                          33,719
                (including construction related
                fixed charges)
Add: Interest capitalized                                                5,187
                                                      -------------------------

Total Fixed Charges                                                    $38,906
                                                      =========================

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                        1.50
                                                      =========================
Reply to Attn of:

National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001

November 12, 2021
General Law Practice Group
TO: Distribution
FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA Employees at the Pre-Launch
Reception and Dinner on November 14 in conjunction with the American

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics ASCEND Conference on November
8-17, 2021

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), a not-for-profit
organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code, will hold the
ASCEND Conference during November 8-17, including a pre-launch in-person reception
and dinner for the Guiding Coalition, students, and early/mid-career professionals on
November 14, at the Caesars Forum Plaza, 3911 Koval Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89109,
starting at 6:00 p.m., PST. AIAA is in control of the planning, organizing, and issuing
invitations for this event.

Approximately 50 people are expected to attend the reception and dinner. Attendees will
have a diversity of views or interests and will include personnel from other federal
agencies, and representatives from academia and industry. The estimated cost of the event,
including all food and beverages, is approximately $120-170 per person. Attendance will
allow NASA attendees to exchange information regarding various NASA programs. I find
that the event meets the requirements of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5
C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2).

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having invited NASA personnel
attend the reception and dinner because it will provide an opportunity to exchange ideas
and views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations.! NASA employees —
including in non-career positions who are required to sign an ethics pledge under Executive
Order 13989 — who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests of
AIAA may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event. In those circumstances, I
find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the individual may
be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their duties.

! This widely attended gathering determination does not address in person attendance at the substantive sessions
of the ASCEND conference by NASA employees on official travel, including for which may haye been
separately authorized under reimbursable travel orders. NASA employees who are speaking at an ASCEND

conference session may attend that day’s conference program in person without further formality under the
speaker’s exception.


However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting
the interests of the sponsor, such as procurement duties, program management, or
negotiating or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination
from their local ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation. Attendees
are reminded to exercise any COVID-19 precautions appropriate to their individual
situation.

2, fl

Adam F. Greenstone