alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 109.

#### James A. Sample, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Cary & Stanford, defendants in error.

[1.] If the surety on appeal becomes insolvent pending the appeal, the appellant has the right to save the appeal, by filing an affidavit that he was advised and believed that ho had good cause of appeal; and that owing • to his poverty lie was unable to give any better security than that which ' he did give.

Assumpsit, in Heard Superior Court. Tried before Judge Bull, Not ember Term, 1855.

This was an action of assum psifc on an open account, brought by Oery & Stanford against James A. Sample as surviving ■.co-partner, &c. At the April Term, 1352, the defendant *574confessed a judgment for $222 20, reserving tbe right of appeal. And at the same term he entered an appeal, giving Noah M. Harris as his security on the appeal bond.

At the November Term, 1855, of said Court, the cause came on to be tried on the appeal, when Counsel for plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground, that pending the appeal, the security had become insolvent. This fact was admitted by the defendant, wrho then and there, being unable to give other security, moved the Court to bo allowed to continue the appeal, by filing his affidavit in terms of -the law, ‘‘that he was advised and believed that he had a good cause of appeal; and that owing to his poverty, he was unable to give other good security as required by law;” which motion the Court over-ruled, and dismissed the appeal; and Counsel for defendant excepted.

Mabry, for plaintiff in error.

Hill, for defendants.

*By the Court.*

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The question is, was it the right of the appellant to save his appeal by filing such an affidavit as that which he proposed to file.

We think it was. We have so decided in two cases— *Burkhalter vs. Bullock,*(18 Ga. 371,). and another since, the name of which I forget.

We, therefore, reverse the decision of the Court below.
12 December 2008

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
AND
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Subj: Memorandum of Understanding ICO Former Naval Air Station Moffett Field

The Department of the Navy (DON), through the Honorable BJ Penn, Assistant
Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment), and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), through Dr. S. Pete Worden, Director Ames Research
Center, and Dr. James Wright, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Infrastructure, reached
agreement on the ownership and responsibility for remedial actions regarding the former
NAS Moffett Field property as discussed below. Details will be addressed on subsequent
discussions with the goal of reaching final agreement on remediation issues by January
15, 2609.

DON acknowledges that the intent and effect of the original Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) executed by DON and NASA in 1992 was the transfer of the
former NAS Moftett Field property to the NASA plant account at no cost ta NASA,
NASA is the current plant account holder for this federal property.

Notwithstanding the specific terms of the 1992 MOU, NASA and DON intend that
in exchange for an amount of appropriated funds to be negotiated between the agencies,
NASA will assume responsibility for ongoing and future remedial, actions for all the
property transferred under the 1992 MOU. with the exception of Hangar One and Crows
Landing Naval Air Station. To facilitate NASA‘s assumption of this responsibility, DON
intends to transfer unobligated funds appropriated in FY 2009 for remediation at the
former Moffett Field to NASA for ongoing and planned remedial actions and will seek
FY 2010 and FY 2011 funds for the same purpose. Additionally, DON and NASA will
work with the regulatory community to document the transfer of responsibilities.



Subj; Memorandum of Understanding [CO Former Naval Air Station Moffett Field

In order to ensure effective remediation and preservation of Hangar One and
efficient use of DON FY09 funds, DON and NASA will strive to coordinate response
activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act and reuse activities for Hangar One. DON and NASA understand there are
unresolved budgetary, engineering, regulatory, and community interest issues associated
with this project but will make every effort to ensure that DON funds for Hangar One are
obligated in FY09,

RAO

A

By Penn! - James W. Whight, PLE,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy Deputy Assista:
(installations and Environment) Ames Research Center Administrator for Infrastructure

National Aeronautics and National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Space Administration
#### Moffett *v.*Powell et al.

Pleading — Contract — Written Evidence.

What was the subject of the proposition, though doubtless understood by the parties, is not shown by the letter in evidence, and it is not stated in the petition that it was shown by the letter in which the defendant says that he accepted the proposition. There was, therefore, no contract evidenced by writing.

APPEAL EROM ' CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

June 22, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Marshall :

Powell’s letter of the 8th of September, 1864, seems to refer to and to renew a previous proposition made to the plaintiff. The language is, “my last proposition was $1,700 — $5 down, and the rest in three years at six per cent, interest (if I recollect rightly), at least/ above will do.” "What was the subject of the proposition, though doubtless understood by the parties, is not shown by this letter, and it is not stated in the petition that it was even shown by the letter in which the defendant says he accepted the proposition, which letter having been sent to the defendant without preserving a copy is not filed by plaintiff, nor called for from the defendant. Nor is there any statement either of its date or of its contents, except by saying that in it the proposition was accepted.

The defendants’ subsequent letter of November 20, 1864, exhibited by plaintiff, shows that houses were the subject of the negotiation, but does not show to what houses or what ground or land it referred, and instead of acknowledging or proving that plaintiff had accepted the writer’s proposition, it imports an acceptance of plaintiff’s proposition, requiring, however, as a condition of performance, the immediate payment of $50 for back rents — which was not complied with — nor does it appear what the plaintiff’s proposition was. There was, therefore, no contract evidenced by writing. The $50 afterward paid was paid for back rents, and is not reclaimable. No money was paid or tendered for the houses by way of purchase. The mortgage of them to the owner *168was void, as was also the note, and no demand for their surrender or cancelment having been made there was no ground for applying to a court of equity.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. 1350**

|   | (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                Registrant as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the                report. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                        |                                                                                                                    |                               |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Date:                December                21, 2006  |                                                                                                                         | /s/              Peter B. Jacobson |
|                                                        | Peter                B. JacobsonChief                  Executive Officer (Principal Executive                  Officer) |

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guillermo PADILLA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10642.

D.C. No. CR-99-00278-DAE.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2003.

Kenneth M. Sorenson, U.S. Attorney Office, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Georgia K. McMillen, Esq., Wailuku, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Guillermo Padilla appeals his conviction and 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Padilla’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no arguable issues for review, and a motion to *834withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our examination of the brief and independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no issues warranting review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.1

**

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

1

. We decline to review any ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. *See United States v. Hanoum,*33 F.3d 1128, 1131—32 (9th Cir.1994).
#### WAYNE V. KELLSTROM v. TOMS RIVER PUBLISHING COMPANY — THE REPORTER.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
|X-15Hypersonic Research
        at the Edge of SpaceOther links | Other links                      | NASA logoNational Air AndSpace MuseumU.S. Air ForceFlight Test CenterUS Air ForceMuseumhome |  | National Air AndSpace Museum |  | U.S. Air ForceFlight Test Center |  | US Air ForceMuseum |  | home |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | -------------------------------- |  | ------------------ |  | ---- |  | 
|Other links                                                      
|                                                                  | National Air AndSpace Museum    
|                                                                  | U.S. Air ForceFlight Test Center
|                                                                  | US Air ForceMuseum              
|                                                                  | home                            
|                                                                  |                                 

---
#### REGINA LYNCH HENRY *v.*DAVID G. HENRY.

June 27, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Berger *v*. Henderson.

Debt by the assignee of a promissory note against.the maker. Plea, *nil debet. Held,*that 'the plaintiff was not obliged to prove the assignment, there being no affidavit denying it.'-

*Friday, May*28.

ERROR tp the *Henry*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

Debt on a promissory note 'by *Henderson,*assignee of *Elliott,*against *Berger.*The declaration was in the usual form. Pleas, 1st, *nil debet;*2dly^ payment and a release. To the second plea, a special demurrer was filed on account of the duplicity, and correctly sustained by the *546Court. By consent of parties, the remaining issue was tried by the Court. The plaintiff gave in evidence on the trial the note and assignment as described in his declaration. The defendant objected to the indorsement being received in evidence, without proof of its execution. The Court overruled the objection, and gave judgment for the plaintiff.

*J.,S. Newman^*for the plaintiff.

*D.*Macy, for the defendant.

The 21st section of the practice act (R. S. 1838,) provides that no 'plea denying or requiring proof of .the execution or assignment of any instrument of writing, which is the foundation of any suit or defence, and, specially set forth in the declaration or other pleadings, shall be received unless supported by oath or affirmation. The plea in the present case was not' supported by oath of affirmation. If it had been the defendant’s object to require proof of, the assignment, there should have'been an affidavit denying its execution. When the case of *Bates et al.*v. *Hunt,*1 Blackf. 67, was décided, the foregoing statute as it regards the assignment of notes, &c. had not been enacted. Since its enactment the law as decided in that case has been changed. The Circuit Court,therefore, committed no. error in overruling the objection of the-defendant. ,

• In *Arnold*v. *Sturges, Nov.*term, 1839, this point did not arise. In that case, the assignment of the note was not produced in evidence, in consequence of which the testimony of the plaintiff was incomplete." ■ ' ■

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
#### Depree Devine RUSSELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Samuel SUBLETT, et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-16020.

D.C. No. CV-01-00660-SRB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*819Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2003.

Depree Devine Russell, pro se, Yuma, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Jon G. Anderson, DAG, Consuelo Marie Ohanesian, Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Depree Devine Russell appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we remand for further proceedings.

Key to the question of whether Russell’s federal habeas petition is timely is how long his final state application for post-conviction relief was “pending” for tolling purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). *See Biggs v. Duncan,*339 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that petitioner is not entitled to tolling for the time between successive rounds of state post-conviction relief proceedings). Russell contends that he filed the petition on May 8, 2000, the date on which he delivered it to prison authorities, whereas the state contends that the correct filing date is November 8, 2000, the date on which Russell’s petition is noted on the Maricopa County Superior Court docket.

Contrary to the state’s assertion, Russell did not waive this argument in district court. Russell listed May 8, 2000 as the date on which he filed his last state petition in both the original and amended federal petitions filed in district court. Also, Russell objected that the Finding and Recommendation filed by the magistrate judge failed to take the May 8, 2000 filing date into account for tolling purposes. Russell’s objection was not addressed by the district court in its order dismissing the petition.

Russell supports his argument with a notarized copy of the state petition in question and an “Inmate Letter Response,” which together tend to confirm that Russell’s petition was mailed to the Superior Court of Maricopa County on May 8, 2000. Because it is unclear whether the district court had these documents available for its consideration as part of the complete state court record, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand so that the district court may consider this tolling issue in the first instance.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### TOWN OF KEARNY v. RABS DEVELOPING CORP., ARTHUR W. FUCETOLA, SR., FUCETOLA BROS., F & F ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

March 24, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 172 A1 3 FILED 20 DECEMBER 2013

DAVID B. WIND

v. THE CITY OF GASTONIA, NORTH CAROLINA, A Municipal Corporation

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A

- 30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of
the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 7 3 8 S.E.2d 780 (201 3 ), affirming an order
granting summary judgment for plaintiff and denying summary judgment for

defendant entered on 1 November 2011 by Judge Forrest Donald Bridges in Superior
Court, Gaston County , and remanding for further proceedings

. Heard in the Supreme

Court on 18 November 2013

.

The McGuinness Law Firm, by J. Michael McGuinness, for plaintiff

- appellee

. Cranfill Su mner & Hartzog LLP, by Jaye E. Bingham

- Hinch
, Patrick H. Flanagan
, and Bradley P. Kline, for defendant

- appellant

. Fred P. Baggett for North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police ; and Edmond W. Caldwell, Jr. , General Counsel, and Julie B. Smith, Associa te General Counsel, for North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association , amic i curiae.

Richard Hattendorf

, General Counsel; and Bailey & Dixon, LLP, by Jeffrey P. Gray, for North Carolina State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police
, amicus curiae.

Edelstein and Payne, by M. Travis Payne, for Professional Fire Fighters and Paramedics of North Carolina, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
No. 87-1143.

#### Hollis *v.*Campbell County District Court.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant the petition for writ of certiorari and reverse the judgment.
**EXHIBIT   99.1**

 

 

CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10–Q of Full House Resorts, Inc. for the quarterended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report’), I, William P. McComas, Chairman of the Board and ChiefExecutive Officer of Full House Resorts, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Full House Resorts, Inc.

 

 
| Dated: August 12, 2002 | By:                                           | /s/ William P. McComas |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
|                   | William P. McComas                                 |                   |
|                   | Chairman of the Board and  Chief Executive Officer |
|                        |                                                    |                        |  |

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10–Q of Full House Resorts, Inc. for the quarterended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”) I, Michael P. Shaunnessy, Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer of Full House Resorts, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Full House Resorts, Inc.

 

 
| Dated: August 12, 2002 | By:                                                  | /s/ Michael P. Shaunnessy |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                   | Michael P. Shaunnessy                                |                      |
|                   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                        |                                                      |                           |  |

 

1

----
39

30

35 36

33

30

32

35

37

36

33

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

Activity Pages

 NP-2020-04-027-LaRC
Connect the Dots

Viking Lander on Mars
Numbers

Help Mathemetician Katherine

Johnson fill in the missing numbers

39

30

35 36

33

30

32

35

37

36

33
Maze

Help the Wright Flyer get to

the Blended Wing
Word Search