alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Pennington and Others *v.*The Governor.

To a bill in Equity praying a decree for the payment of a lost bond, an affidavit of the loss must bo annexed.

ERROR to the *Harrison*Circuit Court.' — This was a suit in Equity for the payment of a lost bond. No affidavit of the loss of the bond was annexed to the bill. — Payment was decreed by the Circuit Court.

*Nelson,*for the plaintiffs.

Scott, J.

In case of lost bonds, Courts of Equity have made a distinction between bills brought for a discovery only, and those in which there is a prayer for relief beyond the discovery; as in this case, for the payment of money. Although the Courts do not refuse the relief prayed for in either case; yet where the hill is for the amount specified in the bond alleged to be lost, they will prescribe certain conditions, on which the relief will be administered (1). The established rule in such cases is, that an affidavit of the loss must be annexed to the bill; and this has been considered indispensable. 1 Madd. Ch. 26, 27. We think the want of an affidavit in this case a fatal defect, for which the proceedings must be set aside.'

Holman, J., was absent in consequence of indisposition.

*Per Curiam.*

The decree is reversed, and the bill dismissed.

(1)

 The idea once prevailed, that no recovery *at law*could be had on a lost bond, *proferí*and *oyer*being indispensable: hence, the Chancellor’s jurisdiction. Read *v. Brookman,*3 T. R. 151, dispenses with *proferi*in such cases, and permits a recovery at law; but Courts of Equity still retain jurisdiction. *—Proferi*and *over*having never been required in actions at law on lost notes, proving the contents being sufficient, and nothing standing in the plaintiffs way, no relief in these cases is given in Equity. 1 Madd. Ch. 25, 26.
Exhibit 32.1

Section 906 Certification of Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the Form 10-Q) of Eastern Virginia Bankshares, Inc. (the Company), I, Joe A. Shearin, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company as of and
for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                         |  |  |  |                  
|--- |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------
|By: |  | /s/ Joe A. Shearin      |  |  |  | Date: May 5, 2008
|    |  | Joe A. Shearin          |  |  |  |                  
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |                  



29
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 22, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50773 Summary Calendar

JOHN T. JOSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BELL COUNTY TEXAS, RICK MILLER, County Attorney; DAN SMITH, Sheriff, JANE DOE, Secretary; R. W. PATTERSON, Jail Administrator; BELL COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER; PENNYBAKER, Corporal; FNU ANDREWS, Officer; FNU MINTER, Officer; PLANAS, Officer; FISCHBACH; FNU MARTINEZ, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-02-CV-365

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * John T. Josey filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that, while he was being housed at the Bell County Law Enforcement Center as a pre-trial detainee, various prison officials and governmental entities violated his civil rights. Josey’s complaint also contained several state law claims.No. 03-50773 -2- The district court dismissed Josey’s complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to F ED . R. C IV . P. 12(b)(6), and Josey timely appealed. Josey has filed a motion to compel this court to acknowledge that his handwritten appellate brief was compliant with the rules of this court. That motion is GRANTED. All of Josey’s other outstanding motions before this court are DENIED. Liberally construed, Josey has presented an argument that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. After a de novo review of the record and the briefs before us, we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed Josey’s complaint pursuant to F ED . R. C IV . P. 12(b)(6).
See Lowrey v. Texas A & M Univ. Sys. , 117 F.3d 242, 246 (5th Cir. 1997); Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n , 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993); Manax v. McNamara , 842 F.2d 808, 812 (5th Cir. 1988).
AFFIRMED.
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. 

Travis Ralph Jose, Sr., 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-01200-01-PHX-SRB

ORDER OF DETENTION 

A detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing on the Petition on 

Supervised Release were held on November 22, 2017. 

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

waived his right to a detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing and has 

consented to the issue of detention being made based upon the allegations in the Petition. 

 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 not a serious flight risk. 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 28th day of November, 2017. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge
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 Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Veterans Rural Health Advisory Committee will meet on November 18-19, 2014, in Room 104, at 1100 First Street NE., Washington, DC from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. The meeting is open to the public.

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on health care issues affecting enrolled Veterans residing in rural areas. The Committee examines programs and policies that impact the provision of VA health care to enrolled Veterans residing in rural areas, and discusses ways to improve and enhance VA services for these Veterans.

The agenda will include updates from the Committee Chair and the Director of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Office of Rural Health (ORH), as well as presentations on general health care access and quality.

                    Public comments will be received at 4:30 p.m. on November 19, 2014. Interested parties in attending the meeting should contact Mr. Elmer D. Clark, by mail at ORH, 90 K Street NE., Room 700C, Washington, DC 20002, or via email at                     *Elmer.Clark2@va.gov*                     or by fax (202) 632-8609. Individuals scheduled to speak are invited to submit a 1-2 page summary of their comments for inclusion in the official meeting record.                

Dated: October 27, 2014.

Rebecca Schiller,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2014-25801 Filed 10-29-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
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 on Form 10-Q of Perkins & Marie
Callender’s Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended April 19, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Joseph F. Trungale, 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), as
      applicable, 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.





Dated:
June 3, 2009


BY:/s/ Joseph F. TrungaleJoseph
      F. TrungalePresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
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 the Treasury

###### Bureau of the Fiscal Service

# AGENCY:

Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the appointment of the members of the Fiscal Service Performance Review Board (PRB) for the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service). The PRB reviews the performance appraisals of career senior executives who are below the level of Assistant Commissioner/Executive Director and who are not assigned to the Office of the Commissioner in the Fiscal Service. The PRB makes recommendations regarding proposed performance appraisals, ratings, bonuses, pay adjustments, and other appropriate personnel actions.

# DATES:

Effective on October 27, 2014.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tracy Walters, Acting Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, (304) 480-8949.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This Notice announces the appointment of the following primary and alternate members to the Fiscal Service PRB:

## Primary Members

Kimberly A. McCoy, Deputy Commissioner, Finance and Administration, Fiscal Service

Dara N. Seaman, Assistant Commissioner, Treasury Securities Services, Fiscal Service

Matthew J. Miller, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Governmentwide Accounting, Fiscal Service

## Alternate Member

Jeffrey Schramek, Assistant Commissioner, Debt Management Services, Fiscal Service.

Dated: October 22, 2014.

Sheryl Morrow,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 2014-25471 Filed 10-24-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-39-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Monika Luabeya","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mluabeya\/","title":"NASA\u2019s X-59 Quiet Supersonic Research Aircraft Unveiled","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pRfjJZQPBI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/nasas-x-59-quiet-supersonic-research-aircraft-unveiled\/\">NASA\u2019s X-59 Quiet Supersonic Research Aircraft Unveiled<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/nasas-x-59-quiet-supersonic-research-aircraft-unveiled\/embed\/#?secret=pRfjJZQPBI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s X-59 Quiet Supersonic Research Aircraft Unveiled” — NASA\" data-secret=\"pRfjJZQPBI\" 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\/2024\/01\/afrc2024-0004-001orig.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":385}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,994,739
<SECURITIES>                                   191,702
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,488,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (257,424)
<INVENTORY>                                    806,678
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,695,928
<PP&E>                                       1,101,860
<DEPRECIATION>                               (416,377)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,964,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,763,297
<BONDS>                                        151,924
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,174,064
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,874,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,964,176
<SALES>                                      7,371,531
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,371,531
<CGS>                                        2,949,809
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,829,204
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (382,984)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,449
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,042,947)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,042,947)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,042,947)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)


</TABLE>
Order filed August 24, 2021 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00303-CV

____________

RICHARD D. DAVIS L.L.P., A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY 

PARTNERSHIP; AND RICHARD D. DAVIS, L.L.P., A TEXAS 

GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, Appellants

V.

ANDY KNOTT; BILL GREEN; DEMPSEY GEAREN; JIM PHILLIPS;

PHIL BIRKELBACH; PAUL KATES; DANNY LANGHORNE; HANS 

VAN DER VOORT; GENE MORTON; AND STANLEY 

HOFFPAUIR, Appellees

On Appeal from the 506th Judicial District Court

Waller County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 08-12-19600

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due August 13, 2021. No brief or motion for extension 

of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before September 23, 

2021, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson.
#### Paul Everette Phillips *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 1-1174A172.

Filed May 29, 1975.

Rehearing denied July 2, 1975.

Transfer denied April 26, 1976.]

*John G. Burner,*of Evansville, for appellant.

*Theodore L. Sendak,*Attorney General, *Walter F. Lockhart,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Lybrook, J.

Defendant-appellant Phillips shot and killed his wife. He brings this appeal from his conviction of voluntary manslaughter. Expressly waiving all other issues, Phillips challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence, maintaining that it does not support the jury finding that the homicide was intentional. We affirm.

In reviewing a conviction to determine whether it was supported by sufficient evidence this court neither weighs the evidence nor resolves questions of credibility of witnesses. Rather, we view only the evidence most favorable to the State, together with all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. If from that viewpoint there is substantial evidence of probative value to establish each material element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not be disturbed. *Nicholas*v. *State*(1973), 261 Ind. 115, 300 N.E.2d 656.

*297The evidence most favorable to the State reveals that during an argument between Phillips and his wife, Phillips grabbed a shotgun from a gun rack hanging on a wall in the room in which the argument occurred. As he turned toward his wife the gun discharged, striking her in the neck and resulting in her death.

Phillips’ only argument is that the firing of the gun was accidental and that he had no intent to kill. Pie therefore urges that conviction for voluntary manslaughter was error.

Expert testimony at trial revealed that the mechanics of the shotgun were such that accidental discharge was virtually impossible unless the hammer was first cocked back. Further, once the hammer was fully cocked, the gun could not be fired by bumping it, but rather only by pulling the trigger. This is substantial evidence of probative value from which the jury could have inferred beyond a reasonable doubt that Phillips in some manner deliberately manipulated and caused the shotgun to fire. Since intent and purpose to kill may be inferred from the deliberate use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death, *Jones*v. *State*(1970), 253 Ind. 456, 255 N.E.2d 105, we find Phillips’ argument on appeal unpersuasive.

Judgment affirmed.

Robertson, C.J. and Lowdermilk, J., concur.

Note.—Reported at 328 N.E.2d 255.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"Lunar Orbiter 3","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"b1UCAWZqWd\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/lunar-orbiter-3\/\">Lunar Orbiter 3<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/lunar-orbiter-3\/embed\/#?secret=b1UCAWZqWd\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Lunar Orbiter 3” — NASA\" data-secret=\"b1UCAWZqWd\" 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\/04\/lunar-orbiter-moon-jf.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":566}
Dismissed and Corrected Memorandum Opinion filed January 30, 2014

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-01053-CV

RAMESH KAPUR D/B/A AIC MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Appellant

V.

THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-00556

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed July 26, 2013. No clerk’s record has 

been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed 

the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. 

On January 3, 2014, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s 

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, 
2

appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court 

with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Busby and Donovan.