alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### H. C. Gasney *v.*W. A. Downton.

Forcible Entry and Detainer — Traverse—Adverse Possession — Deed of Partition Competent Evidence to Establish Boundary and Possession.

On a traverse of the finding of a jury in the country, a commissioner’s deed of partition, by which the premises in contest were assigned to traverse, may be admitted as evidence to establish boundary and elucidate possession.

Same — Instruction Explained.

The instruction of the court that the jury must find for Dowton, “unless they shall believe from the evidence in the whole case that McLaughlin took the possession originally as the tenant of J. H. Yelton,” was simply? tantamount to saying that though this was proven by one witness, yet upon the whole evidence in the case, “you believe this is not the fact, you will find for Dowton.”

APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

February 18, 1870.

*632Carlisle, *Hallam*& Hodge, *for appellant.*

*Landram, Baker, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

Oh this traverse of the finding of the jury in the *country*on a warrant of forcible entry by appellee against appellant, the commissioner’s deed on partition of lands descended to the heirs of Swope, by which the premises in contest were assigned to Mrs. Downton, was properly admitted as evidence to establish boundaries and elucidate appellee’s possession.

As McLaughlin for some year or more before his death, and his widow and children for several years after his death, had remained in possession of the land as appellee’s tenants, and she had left the premises on the false representations and fraudulent procurement of appellant who paid her to do so, and he very soon afterward entered under Yelton, and as he attempted to prove as a defense that McLaughlin originally entered as tenant to Yelton and had afterwards illegally attorned to appellant, the instruction of the court that they must find for Downton “unless they shall believe from he evidence in he whole case that McLaughlin, the husband of Mrs. McLaughlin, took the possesion originally as the tenant of J. H. Yelton,” was proper and could scarcely have mislead the jury. It was simply tantamount to saying that though Gasney has proved this by one witness, yet if upon the whole evidence in the cause, “you believe this was not the fact, whether from the misreeollection or otherwise of the witness, you will find for Downton.”

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 526

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to adjust the maximum

hour exemption for agricultural employees, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1997

Mr. CRAPO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Education and the Work force

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to adjust

the maximum hour exemption for agricultural employees,

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

4 OF 1938.

5 Section 13(b)(12) of the Fair Labor Standards Act

6 of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(b)(12)) is amended by inserting

7 after ‘‘water’’ the following: ‘‘, at least 75 percent of which

8 is ultimately delivered’’.

Æ
#### J. C. Arnold *v.*Thos. Williams.

Bills and Notes — Pleading—Notice of Protest.

An allegation in a petition on a protested hill, that “said parties to the same were duly advised of said acceptance being protested.” Held, insufficient to state a cause of action under Civil Code, Sec. 118, — it being a conclusion of the pleader that the law had been complied with.

APPEAL EROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

May 13, 1871.

*Carlisle, Foote, for appellant.*

*Rankin, for appellee.*

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin :

Tbe principal question in this case and tbe only one we need to decide, is as to tbq sufficiency of tbe petition, which was involved by tbe action of tbe circuit court in sustaining tbe demurrer to tbe answer of tbe appellant.

Due notice of tbe protest of the bill, which was tbe foundation of tbe action, was necessary to bind the appellant as endorsers.

Tbe only allegation in tbe petition of tbis is that “said parties to tbe same were duly advised of said acceptance being protested.”

Was that a sufficient averment of tbe essential fact that H-e notice required by law was given in proper time and in tbe manner necessary to bind the endorser of tbe bill? According to tbe rule that tbe plaintiff must state “facts constituting” bis cause of action? (Civil Code, section 118.) We are of tbe opinion that tbe allegation stated does not with sufficient certainty impart a statement of facts from which tbe court could determine that notice of protest was given as tbe aw required. Tbe petition does not allege when, bow, or by whom, tbe appellant was *“advised”*of tbe protest; and tbe statement, in effect, that be was duly advised of tbe fact, is but tbe pleader’s conclusion that tbe law was complied with, without tbe disclosure of facts from which tbe court could judge whether it was or not.

Tbe demurrer should therefore have been applied and sustained to tbe petition.

Wherefore, tbe judgment is reversed, and tbe cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with tbis opinion.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7744

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARK JAMES KONSAVICH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief 

District Judge. (5:05-cr-00019-GEC-RSB-1; 5:11-cv-80371-GECRSB)

Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark James Konsavich, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark James Konsavich seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Konsavich has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

 

I,Gerard E. Holthaus, Chief Executive Officer, certify, that:

 

(1)         I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of  Scotsman Holdings, Inc.;

 

(2)         Based on myknowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

(3)         Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

(4)         Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under  mysupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)             Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

(5)         Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a)              Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| */s/ Gerard E. Holthaus*  | * * |
|---------------------------|----------|
| *Gerard E. Holthaus*      |
| *Chief Executive Officer* |
| * *                  |
| March 30, 2005       |

 

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Apelt, ) No. CV-98-00882-PHX-ROS

)

Petitioner, ) DEATH PENALTY CASE

)

v. )

)

) ORDER

Charles L. Ryan, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

)

)

There being no opposition,

IT IS ORDERED Petitioner’s Motion for Supplemental Briefing (Doc. 311) is

GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting the following briefing schedule:

1. No later than July 30, 2012, Petitioner shall file a supplemental brief

addressing: (1) whether under Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2011), Petitioner has cause

to excuse the procedural default of Claims 1-B, 1-D, and 12; and (2) the merits of Claims

1-B, 1-D, and 12. The merits portion of the brief shall include a discussion of the applicable

standards of review and shall also include any requests for evidentiary development,

including identification of the evidence or facts sought to be developed and the applicable

standards governing evidentiary development. 

2. No later than September 14, 2012, Respondents shall file a response to

Petitioner’s supplemental brief.

Case 2:98-cv-00882-ROS Document 315 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

3. No later than October 15, 2012, Petitioner shall file a reply.

4. The Court’s courtesy copy of any brief in excess of 50 pages shall be spiral

bound on the left and shall include a table of contents, an exhibits list (if any), and tabs

between exhibits (if any).

DATED this 23rd day of May, 2012.

Case 2:98-cv-00882-ROS Document 315 Filed 05/23/12 Page 2 of 2
Smith Barney Futures Management LLC
                         388 Greenwich Street, 7th Floor
                          New York, New York 10013-2396

May 31, 2000


Beacon Management Corporation
47 Hullfish Street
Princeton, N.J. 08542

Attention:  Mr. Mark Stratton

         Re:      Management Agreement Renewals

Dear Mr. Stratton:

We are  writing  with  respect  to your  management  agreements  concerning  the
commodity pools to which reference is made below (the "Management  Agreements").
We are extending the term of the Management  Agreements through June 30, 2001and
all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged.

                       Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. II
                       Salomon Smith Barney Orion Futures Fund L.P.
                       Smith Barney Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P.
Please  acknowledge  receipt of this  modification  by signing  one copy of this
letter and returning it to the  attention of Mr. Daniel  Dantuono at the address
above or fax to  212-723-8985.  If you have any  questions  I can be  reached at
212-723-5416.

Very truly yours,

SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT LLC


By:
         Daniel A. Dantuono
         Chief Financial Officer,
         Director & Treasurer

By:

Print Name:

DAD/sr
Case 2:15-mj-01623-JFM Document 3 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01623-JFM Document 3 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01623-JFM Document 3 Filed 08/25/15 Page 3 of 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 Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2005 (the
Report), I, Joseph Lloyd McAdams, Chairman of the Board, President and 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, 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.



By:

/s/ Joseph Lloyd McAdamsJoseph Lloyd McAdamsChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive OfficerMay 9, 2005




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (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 required by Section 906, 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.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Supercomputers Visualize Quieter Supersonic Flight","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rKdOY8ejQM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/nasa-supercomputers-visualize-quieter-supersonic-flight-2\/\">NASA Supercomputers Visualize Quieter Supersonic Flight<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/nasa-supercomputers-visualize-quieter-supersonic-flight-2\/embed\/#?secret=rKdOY8ejQM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Supercomputers Visualize Quieter Supersonic Flight” — NASA\" data-secret=\"rKdOY8ejQM\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/sc20_lava-1.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Art Galvan

, * From the 23 8 th District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. TX13799

.

Vs. No. 11

- 17

- 00 316

- CV * August 22 , 2019

Midland Central Appraisal District, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey , C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey

, C. J.,

Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t here is

no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the

order of the tria l court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason of

this appeal are taxed against Art Galvan

.
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-74-2014]

# For Further Information Contact:

                        Pierre Duy at                         *Pierre.Duy@trade.gov*                         (202) 482-1378.                    

Dated: October 20, 2014.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-25636 Filed 10-27-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### William Davis *v.*M. L. Steinberger’s Admr.

Appeal and Error — Conflicting Testimony — Verdict Will Not be Disturbed.

"Where there is an apparent diversity in the evidence the court of appeals will not disturb the verdict of twelve jurors who saw and heard the witnesses.

APPEAL FROM HICKMAN CIRCUIT COURT.

November 27, 1869.

Lindseys, Bullock, *for appellant.*

*Lindsay &*Moss, *for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The testimony is vexatiously conflicting on the decisive question of identity. That of Hall who raised the appellee’s mule and of Zimmerman who sold it to Steinberger,' is so positive and explicit as to its peculiar identifying marks, as to incline the preponderance in the appellee’s favor. But however this may be, there is such an apparent diversity as not to allow this court to disturb the verdict of twelve jurors who saw and heard the witnesses. Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1442

ADOL T. OWEN-WILLIAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER AND SMITH,

INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge;

Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-94-1287-PJM)

Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 2, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adol T. Owen-Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Pontone,

Margaret A. Jacobsen, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying his

motion to modify an arbitration award and denying reconsideration.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. Owen-Williams v. Merrill Lynch, No. CA-94-

1287-PJM (D. Md. Dec. 8, 1995; Mar. 19, 1996). We deny Appellant's

motion to supplement the record to add documents not before the

district court and dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

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

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 March 23, 2009

0316 

# Order

March 23, 2009

137649

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137649 COA: 278571 Wayne CC: 07-004275-01 LAMONT DAUNIELLE PARIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 18, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.