alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Smith McElroy, &c., *v.*Robt. C. Palmer, &c.

Judgment — Appeal—Stare Decisis.

Debt payable out of general fund, not a preferred debt.

APPEAL PROM WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT.

March 10, 1870.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters:

The court below adjudged that the .McElroys, Smith, and Spaulding’s administrator had a preferred lien on the one-third of the tract of land conveyed to Mrs. Palmer by the late Ben Hardin after Mrs. Elliott’s part was set apart to her, that being the interest of Hal Palmer derived by descent from his mother, because he, in his life-time, had become responsible to them for their debt, this preference, however, was subject to the life estate of his father, Dr. Palmer, in the land. This preference they get under the judgment first rendered, which was appealed from, and was affirmed by this court; that question, therefore, is concluded by the former adjudication.

' We see no objection to the judgment so far as Elliot and wife *578are concerned; they got what was adjudged to them by the former decree.

Browne, *for appellants.*

*R. & F., W. H.*Hays, *for appellees.-*

•Nor was it erroneous to adjudge to the McEJroys, Smith, and Spaulding’s administrator their full *pro rata*of their debts out of the estate of Dr. Palmer after exhausting the proceeds of Hal Palmer’s part of the land, that fund constituted no part of Dr. Palmer’s estate, but was independent of it, and after being reduced by the proceeds of Hal Palmer’s' interest in the land. They were entitled to their proportionate share of the other estate.

Perceiving, therefore, no error thus far in the judgment, it is affirmed; but the claim of T. B. and wife for the $10 per acre on the ione-fourth of the land conveyed by the late Ben Hardin to Mrs. Palmer was not a preferred debt, it was payable out of the general fund, and is payable *pro rata*with the other general creditors, for the error alone of giving Hardin and wife a preference for this claim oyer the general creditors the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a judgment in conformity hereto, and this judgment on the cross-appeal is affirmed.

Judge Hardin not sitting.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 4, 2014

No. 04

- 14

- 00615

- CV

IN RE ADAN VOLPE PROPERTIES, LTD.

, Maricela Volpe, General Partner and Juan A. Gonzalez

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On September 2, 2014, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion for temporary stay. This court is of the opinion that a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real party in interest may file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus in this court no later than Septemb er 25 , 2014. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

Relator’s request for temporary stay is GRANTED. The trial court’s order signed July 1, 2014, and any interim deadlines established in the court

- ordered arbitration p roceeding are TEMPORARILY STAYED pending final resolution of the petition filed in this court.

It is so ORDERED on September 4 th , 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2003

- CVF

- 000414

- D2, styled Donato Volpe Jr. v. Adan Volpe Properties, Ltd. and Maricela Volpe, General Partner , pending in the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Elma T. Salinas Ender pr esiding.
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 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bryce Alan Freeman, 

Defendant.

No. CR-16-50012-01-PHX-GMS

ORDER OF DETENTION 

A detention hearing on the Petition on Supervised Release were held on November 

7, 2016. 

The Court Finds that the Defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily 

waived his right to a preliminary revocation hearing. 

 The Court Further Finds that the Defendant has failed to sustain his burden of 

proof by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), FED.R.CRIM.P., 

that he is neither a serious flight risk nor a danger to the community. United States v. 

Loya, 23 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1994). 

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be detained pending further order of the 

court. 

 Dated this 7th day of November, 2016. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:16-cr-50012-GMS Document 10 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 1
H. R. 651

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight

An Act

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for the construction of a

hydroelectric project located in the State of Washington, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period specified

in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would

otherwise apply to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project

numbered 8864, the Commission shall, upon the request of the

project licensee, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence,

and public interest requirements of that section and the Commission’s procedures under that section, extend the time period during

which the licensee is required to commence construction of the

project for not more than 3 consecutive 2-year periods.

(b) APPLICABILITY.—An extension under subsection (a) shall

take effect for a project upon the expiration of the extension, issued

by the Commission under section 13 of the Federal Power Act

(16 U.S.C. 806), of the period required for commencement of

construction of the project.

(c) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the license for

the project referred to in subsection (a) has expired prior to the

date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall reinstate the

license effective as of the date of its expiration and extend the

time required for commencement of construction of the project as

provided in subsection (a) for not more than 3 consecutive 2-year
H. R. 651—2

periods, the first of which shall commence on the date of such

expiration.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Apollo 13: Mission Details","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Ftj4ypT0dd\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/apollo\/apollo-13-mission-details\/\">Apollo 13: Mission Details<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/apollo\/apollo-13-mission-details\/embed\/#?secret=Ftj4ypT0dd\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Apollo 13: Mission Details” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Ftj4ypT0dd\" 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\/2017\/03\/15012354977_8fa070721a_o.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":600}
{"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 Astronauts Available for Interviews Before Space Station Mission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"qWIDgPEq2E\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-astronauts-available-for-interviews-before-space-station-mission\/\">NASA Astronauts Available for Interviews Before Space Station Mission<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-astronauts-available-for-interviews-before-space-station-mission\/embed\/#?secret=qWIDgPEq2E\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Astronauts Available for Interviews Before Space Station Mission” — NASA\" data-secret=\"qWIDgPEq2E\" 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\/2017\/08\/m17-095_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
DIS MISSED and Opinion Filed March 12 , 2013. 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 11

- 01483

- CV
GABRIEL AGUINAGA, SA N JUANA GONZALEZ

- AGUINAGA , AND/OR ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 233 LOS CABOS DRIVE, DALLAS, TX 75232 , Appellants V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. , Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 11

- 05039

- E

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justi ce Wright, Justice Lang

- Miers, and Justice Lewis

On February 13, 2013, we ordered the parties to file a status report within ten days and
told them that if they did not do so, this case would be dismissed. The parties have not filed a

status report or otherwise communicated with this Court about the appeal. We therefore

DISMISS this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

PER CURIAM

111483F.P05– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

GABRIEL AGUINAGA, SAN JUANA GONZALEZ

- AGUINAGA, AND/OR ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 233 LOS CABOS DRIVE, DALLAS, TX 75232, Appellants

No. 05

- 11

- 01483

- CV V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 11

- 05039

- E. Opinion delivered per curiam before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang

- Miers and Lewis.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellee WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. recover its costs of this appeal from appellants GABRIEL AGUINAGA, SAN JUANA GONZALEZ

- AGUINAGA, AND/OR ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 233 LOS CABOS DRIVE, DALLAS, TX 75232.

Judgment entered this 12th day of March, 2013.

/ Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
982.512
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOE FASON.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
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 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Sylvester Conrad Clay, 

Defendant.

No. CR-16-8020-01-PCT-GMS (DKD)

DETENTION ORDER 

 On March 30, 2017, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition to revoke 

conditions of release and submitted the issue to the Court. The Court considered the 

information provided to the Court in determining whether Defendant should be released 

on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Defendant has violated the 

conditions of release and that there is no condition or combination of conditions available 

to the Court that will reasonably assure the appearance of Defendant as required. 18 

U.S.C. § 3148(b). 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 30th day of March, 2017. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cr-08020-GMS Document 42 Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 1
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Most Home Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended October 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Kenneth Galpin, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

(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.





|Date: December 21, 2005 | /s/  Kenneth Galpin
Kenneth Galpin
President and Chief Executive Officer
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Most Home Corp. and will be retained by Most Home Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Gemstar International Group Limited:

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-05304, 333-06886, 333-77391, 333-31074 and 333-31170) of
Gemstar International Group Limited of our report dated May 31, 2000, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Gemstar International Group
Limited and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related
consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and comprehensive
income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended
March 31, 2000, which report is included in Gemstar International Group
Limited's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2000.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, California
June 29, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-25-1999  
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-27-1998  
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-26-1998  
<CASH>                                             658  
<SECURITIES>                                         0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,119  
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0  
<INVENTORY>                                          0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,777  
<PP&E>                                          55,017  
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,079  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,910  
<BONDS>                                         75,000  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0  
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                             0  
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,169  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,079  
<SALES>                                              0  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0  
<CGS>                                                0  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,254  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (804)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (804)  
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                     (804)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0  
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 12

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDEND
REQUIREMENTS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                For Nine Months          For Three Months
                                                     Ended                     Ended
                                              September 30, 1998        September 30, 1998
                                           ----------------------------------------------------

<S>                                                    <C>                         <C>    
Net income                                             2,109,447                   702,110
Fixed charges:
Income before fixed charges                            2,109,447                   702,110
Fixed charges, as above                                        0                         0
Preferred stock dividend requirements                  1,351,222                   450,225
Fixed charges including preferred
   stock dividends                                     1,351,222                   450,225
Ratio of income to fixed charges and
   preferred stock dividend requirements                    1.56                      1.56
</TABLE>
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 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTER PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION 

No. MDL15-02641-PHX-DGC

No. CV17-2245-PHX DGC

This document relates to: 

Lillian Verde, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

C.R. Bard and Bard Peripheral Vascular, 

Inc., 

 Defendants. 

ORDER ON STIPULATION OF 

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Considering the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice of Plaintiff 

Lillian Verde. Doc. 8225. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGE AND DECLARED that all claims of 

Plaintiff Lillian Verde in the above-captioned action against Defendants C.R. Bard and 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. are dismissed in their entirety without prejudice and each 

party shall bear its own costs. 

 Dated this 30th day of October, 2017. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8474 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8223

ROBERT A. MCGHIE, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

NANCY ROUSE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District 

Judge. (1:05-cv-03102-BEL) 

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: September 10, 2009 

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

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Robert A. McGhie, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Robert A. McGhie seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (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). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McGhie 

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 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
No. D-702.

#### In re Disbarment of Sierra.

It is ordered that Michael Sierra, of Tampa, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.