alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCAD-20-0000365

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

In re CHRISTOPHER S. BOUSLOG, Bar No. 3087

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the November 16, 2021 renewed 

motion for permission to withdraw from the representation of 

disciplined attorney Christopher Bouslog in this matter, filed 

by attorney Keith Shigetomi, which we deem a timely response to 

this court’s November 1, 2021 order to show cause, the 

November 17, 2021 response filed by Bradley Tamm, as Trustee 

Administrator at the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), the 

November 18, 2021 amended declaration filed by attorney 

Shigetomi, the lack of response from Bouslog, and the record in 

this matter and in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bouslog, 

SCPR-20-70, we find that attorney Shigetomi has now complied 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCAD-20-0000365

02-DEC-2021

07:50 AM

Dkt. 53 ORD
2

with the requirements of Rule 50(a) of the Hawaii Rules of 

Appellate Procedure and with this court’s May 27, 2021 order, by 

providing assurances of his cooperation with ODC and the 

Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, particularly in regard to 

the proper safeguarding of all client files and other property 

from Bouslog’s former practice. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for permission to 

withdraw is granted. The clerk of the court shall take the 

necessary steps to reflect in the record of this case attorney 

Shigetomi’s withdrawal as counsel for Christopher Bouslog.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 2, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins
Case 2:15-cr-01458-DJH Document 3 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01458-DJH Document 3 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01458-DJH Document 3 Filed 10/02/15 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 June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2004 (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 ChiefExecutive OfficerAugust 9, 2004




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.
Case 2:15-mj-01930-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01930-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01930-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/22/15 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 24(d)

                                CASE CORPORATION

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

                  CASE CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K



     The undersigned, in his capacity as a Director of Case Corporation, does
hereby appoint Theodore R. French, Richard S. Brennan and Kevin J. Hallagan, and
each of them, severally, his true and lawful attorneys, or attorney, to execute
in his name, place and stead, in his capacity as a Director of said Corporation,
an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, and
any and all amendments to said Annual Report and to the Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997, and all instruments necessary
or incidental in connection therewith, and to file the same with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.  Each of such attorneys shall have the power to act
hereunder with or without the other of such attorneys and shall have full power
and authority to do and perform, in the name and on behalf of the undersigned,
in any and all capacities, every act whatsoever requisite or necessary to be
done in the premises, as fully and to all intents and purposes as the
undersigned might or could do in person, the undersigned hereby ratifying and
approving the acts of said attorneys and each of them.

     IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument on this
1st day of March, 1999.



                                                   /s/ THOMAS R. HODGSON
                                                 -----------------------
                                            Thomas R. Hodgson
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4848 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4848

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to allow any consumer to receive 
   a free credit report annually from any consumer reporting agency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 16, 1998

   Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts (for himself and Ms. Roybal-Allard) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                     Banking and Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to allow any consumer to receive 
   a free credit report annually from any consumer reporting agency.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    (a) In General.--This Act may be cited as the ``Free Annual Credit 
Report Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. FREE CREDIT REPORT ANNUALLY UPON REQUEST OF CONSUMER.

    Section 612 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681j) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
        (d) and (e), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
        subsection:
    ``(c) Free Credit Report Annually Upon Request of Consumer.--Upon 
the request of any consumer, any consumer reporting agency shall make 
all disclosures pursuant to section 609 without charge to such consumer 
at least once each calendar year.''.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 612(a)(1) of the 
Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681j(a)(1)) is amended by 
striking ``(c), and (d)'' and inserting ``(c), (d), and (e)''.
                                 <all>
```
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. 

Phillip Leal, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-1501-22-PHX-SRB

DETENTION ORDER 

 In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), the issue of 

detention was addressed at a hearing on November 4, 2016. The Court was informed that 

the defendant is subject to other custody and is not eligible for release at this time. 

 The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is subject to 

other custody and should be similarly detained in this case. If circumstances change such 

that defendant is no longer in custody in the other matter, defendant shall have leave to 

request that the matter of detention be reopened in this case. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant be detained pending further proceedings. The 

defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated 

representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, 

from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The 

defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense 

counsel. On order of the Court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to 

Case 2:15-cr-01501-SRB Document 586 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a Court 

proceeding. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should a motion for review/reconsideration of 

this detention order be filed, it is counsel's responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion 

for review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the hearing. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it 

is counsel's responsibility to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing 

to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to interview and investigate the potential third 

party custodian. 

 Dated this 7th day of November, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cr-01501-SRB Document 586 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 2
#### Wilcox *v.*Webb and Wife.

In slander for words actionable by statute, not at common law, the declaraiiofi did not aver the cause of action to be *contra formam statuii:*Held, that, after verdict, this no objection.

ERROR to the *Perry*Circuit *Court.*— Webb and his wife brought an action on the case against Wilcox, for slanderous *259words charging the wife with adultery. Plea, the general issue. Yerdict andjudgment for the plaintiffs below.

Kidder, for the plaintiff.

*Thomasson,*for the defendants.

Holman, J.

It was moved in arrest of judgment, and is assigned for error, that, as this action lay not at common law, but is given by statute (1), the offence should be set forth in the declaration as against the form of the statute; or,, at least, with a general reference to the statute. In support of this position, the plaintiffin error urges the doctrine relative to actions on penal statutes (2). But this doctrine is not applicable. This is not a penal statute; but is in its nature remedial, giving a remedy for a pre-existing moral right. The statute of the 3 & 4 Anne, giving an action on a promissory note, and our act of assembly authorizing the assignee of a bond to sue in his own name, or to sue on the assignment, are in some respects similar to this; and a reference to those statutes is mere matter of form. So, in this case, we think the want of such a reference is cured by the verdict.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

(1)

 Vide *Shields et ux.*v. *Cunningham,*ante, p. 86, and note *3.*

(2)

 In an action for a penalty, on a statute, the declaration must allege the *fact*to have been done against the form of the statute, or it will he considered, on error, to be insufficient. *Lee v. Clarke,*2 East, *333.*— Cross v. *United States,*1 Gall. *26.*— Sears v. *United States,*Ibid. 257. The allegation — , whereby and by force of the statute the defendant had forfeited, &o. — is not sufficient. Vide the above-cited cases. If the conclusion be, against the law in such case made and provided, it is not good. *Commonwealth*v. *Morse, 2*Mass. *138.*— Smith v. *United States, 1*Gall. *261.*

When the offence depends on several statutes, a conclusion against the form of a single statute is had: it should be against the form of the statutes. *Lee*v. *Clarke, supra.*— Kenrich v. *United States,*1 Gall. 268. Vide *Strong v. The State,*ante, p. 193. But if the conclusion bp in the plural — against the form of the statutes — when the action is founded on a single statute, it cannot be objected to. *Kenrick*v. *United*States, supra. There are some authorities contrary to this last position, which are cited and commented on by the Court.
---

Karl T. Swanson, SME, MAusIMM P.O.
Box 86 Larkspur, CO 80118, USA 
  Fax: (501) 638-9162

Exhibit 99.9

CONSENT OF TECHNICAL REPORT AUTHOR

Reference is made to the technical report entitled NI 43-101
Technical Report Update, Yukon-Nevada Gold Corp., Jerritt Canyon Property, Elko
County, Nevada, USA, dated June 28, 2011, as amended on January 6, 2012, which
the undersigned has prepared (the Technical Report). The undersigned hereby
consents to the written disclosure of extracts therefrom or summaries thereof,
either directly or as incorporated by reference, in the annual information form
of Yukon-Nevada Gold Corp. (the Corporation) dated March 29, 2012 and the Form
40-F of the Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The
undersigned further consents to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-171775) of the Corporation of the extracts from,
or summaries of, the Technical Report.



/s/ Karl Swanson, SME, MAusIMM Karl T. Swanson, SME,
MAusIMM 
  March 29, 2012

---
NUMBER 13-21-00224-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN RE CITY OF ARANSAS PASS

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator, the City of Aransas Pass, Texas (the 

City), sought to compel the trial court to quash deposition notices directed to Mayor 

Ramiro Gomez, Council Members Carrie Scruggs, Jan Moore, and Vickie Abrego, and 

former Council Member Billy Ellis. However, the City has now filed an unopposed motion 

to dismiss this original proceeding on grounds that the parties have reached an 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so,” but “[w]hen granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case”); 

id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

agreement concerning the matters in dispute. The City contends that the petition for writ 

of mandamus has been rendered moot and it requests that we dismiss this original 

proceeding. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the unopposed motion to dismiss 

this original proceeding, is of the opinion that it should be granted. See Heckman v. 

Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012) (“A case becomes moot if, since 

the time of filing, there has ceased to exist a justiciable controversy between the parties—

that is, if the issues presented are no longer ‘live,’ or if the parties lack a legally cognizable 

interest in the outcome.”); In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 

2005) (orig. proceeding) (stating that a case becomes moot “if a controversy ceases to 

exist between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings”); see also In re Smith 

County, 521 S.W.3d 447, 455 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we 

lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated 

or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally 

decided.”). We grant the unopposed motion to dismiss and we dismiss this original 

proceeding as moot. 

JAIME TIJERINA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

11th day of August, 2021.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001047865
<NAME>                        Webster Preferred Capital Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          99,721
<SECURITIES>                                    75,936
<RECEIVABLES>                                  804,027
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,029)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,301
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 982,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              881
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           40,000
<PREFERRED>                                      1,000
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     941,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   982,956
<SALES>                                         49,075
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,075
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,647
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   160
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,268
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,268
<EPS-BASIC>                                    456,210
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  456,210


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michelle Zajac","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mzajac\/","title":"Lead Space Launch System Avionics Engineer Ales-Cia Winsley","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3reZHMpjcV\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/afs-8-101-451\/\">Lead Space Launch System Avionics Engineer Ales-Cia Winsley<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/afs-8-101-451\/embed\/#?secret=3reZHMpjcV\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Lead Space Launch System Avionics Engineer Ales-Cia Winsley” — NASA\" data-secret=\"3reZHMpjcV\" 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\/12\/ksc-20231128-ph-csh01-0003orig.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":415}
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 

Francene Rosenkrans, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AIG Life Insurance Company, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02620-PHX-ESW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 The Court having considered the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice 

(Doc. 16), and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 16). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff Francene 

Rosenkrans’ claims against Defendant American General Life Insurance Company, each 

party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 Dated this 6th day of April, 2016. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02620-ESW Document 17 Filed 04/07/16 Page 1 of 1
#### Cousins *v.*Brashier, in Error.

HELD, that under the statute of 1807, a bond with surety must be executed and filed before the issuing of a *foreign*attachment, in the same manner as the statute of 1807 requires in cases of *domestic*attachments (1); and that the record of the case must contain a copy of the bond. Ind. Terr. Stat. 1807, p. 62. 469 (2).

(1)

 The statute of 1817, p. 98, and of 1823, p. 69, expressly require that before the issuing of any writ *of foreign*attachment, a bond with surety must be executed and filed as in cases of *domestic*attachments. For the law respecting domestic attachments, vide Ind. Stat. 1823, p. 61.

(2)

 The affidavit, writ of attachment, and declaration if there be one, should be inserted in the record. *Bond*v. Patterson, ante, p. 34. The advertisement of the pendency of the attachment, must appear by the record to have been proved. *Foyles*v. Kelso, in this Court, *Nov.*term, 1822, post.