alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
8951.

#### Myers *v.*Lee *&*Company.

Wade, C. J.

1. The testimony of the.sheriff was that he had the property within his view and where he could control-it, and that he professed, to levy and assume control thereof by virtue of the attachment execution, and with the avowed purpose of holding tli,e same to answer the exigencies of the writ under which he acted *(Corniff*v. *Cook,*95 *Ga.*61, 66 (22 S. E. 47, 51 Am. St. R. 55)); and though no actual seizure was accomplished by a manucaption of the lumber in question, he testified that he left the lumber there in possession of the defendant Myers, “and asked Mm to take care of it; ” from which the -jury were authorized to infer that the defendant agreed to hold the property levied upon for the officer *(Sanders*v. *Carter,*124 *Ga.*676, 678, 52 S. E. 887), and that there was, at least a constructive seizure (Civil Code of 1910, § 6057), because the officer had the custody or control of the property *21by an agent. *Moore*v. *Brown*&c. *Furniture Co.,*107 *Ga.*139 (32 S. E. 835). The testimony of the defendant was directly to the contrary, but the jury passed upon this issue.

Decided March 13, 1918.

Trover; from fcity 'court of Albany—Judge Clayton Jones. May 3, 1917.

*T. H. Miller,*for plaintiff in error. *Peacock & Gardner,*contra.

2. While' there was testimony that the defendant had delivered to the plaintiffs some part of the property sued for, there was direct testimony from one of the plaintiffs that after such delivery “there was at least sixteen thousand feet of decking left, which was’ Worth $13 per thousand;” and this testimony would exactly support the verdict for $208 principal.

3. There is no merit in the special ground of the motion for a new trial complaining of the rejection of certain testimony; we cannot say that there was no testimony to support the verdict returned; and therefore the trial judge did not .err in overruling the motion for a'new trial.

*Judgment affirmed..*

*Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.*
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 97-30513

_____________________________________ FRANCIS K. SONNIER, Individually and on behalf of

Kyle David Sonnier, Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS

CENTENNIAL LIFE INSURANCE, Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(94-CV-109)

______________________________________________________ February 18, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
For essentially the reasons stated by the district court, its judgment is AFFIRMED. The district court did not err in concluding that Centennial's "excessive increases in premiums" constituted a constructive cancellation of its group health insurance policy under Cataldie v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indemn. Co. , 456 So.2d 1373 (La. 1984).
AFFIRMED.2
9129.

#### Parrish *v.*Adams, executor.

Decided April 10, 1918.

Certiorari; from Bibb superior court—Judge Mathews. 'July 27, 1917. .

*Robert L. Berner,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hardeman, Jones, Parle & Johnston, Harry 8. Strozier,*contra.

Luke, J.

1. Where there is an acknowledgment of service of a bill of

exceptions as provided by law, the bill of exceptions may be amended in the reviewing court by adding, as a party defendant iu error to the cause, any person bound by such service, although he may not have been named in the bill of exceptions. Park’s Ann. Code, § 6164 (b); *Toole*v. *Geer,*12 *Ga. App.*409 (77 S. E. 368). Accordingly, in the ease under consideration, the plaintiff in error is allowed to amend the bill of exceptions by inserting, after" the words C. B. Adams, the words “executor of Jas. E. Laidler, deceased,” so that the bill of exceptions may conform to the record in the court below.

2. Under the act of 1913 (Ga. L. 1913, p. 91), the legatee under a will is liable for tlie inheritance tax imposed by that act, and the executor of the will may recover of the legatee such sum as may be by law due by him, upon the refusal of the legatee to pay the same. 1 Park’s Ann. Code, § 1041 (e, f).

3. A party compelled by operation of law to pay a debt which in equity and good faith another party should have kept him from paying may recover from the other party the amount paid. Ticonic Bank *v.*Smiley, 27 Mo. 225 (46 Am. D. 593).

4. The court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, O. J., and Jenhins, J., eoneur.*
Case 2:15-mj-01938-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01938-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01938-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/22/15 Page 3 of 3
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 8936]

Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in these matter pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (“INA”), and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the 2008 decision to maintain the designation of the aforementioned organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization have not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of the designation.

Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the aforementioned organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be maintained.

                    This determination shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

John F. Kerry,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2014-26199 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
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 

David Colby and Diana Colby,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

U. S. Bank National Association ND; et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-02453-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

 Pursuant to the previous orders (Doc. 18, 21), 

 IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice as against Defendant 

Equifax, Inc., only. 

 Dated this 16th day of March, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:15-cv-02453-NVW Document 24 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 694 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 694

To provide for a change with respect to the requirements for a Canadian 
 border boat landing permit pursuant to section 235 of the Immigration 
                          and Nationality Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 1997

Mr. LaTourette introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a change with respect to the requirements for a Canadian 
 border boat landing permit pursuant to section 235 of the Immigration 
                          and Nationality Act.

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

SECTION 1. CHANGE IN CANADIAN BORDER BOAT LANDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.

    Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Attorney General, in consultation with the Commissioner of 
Immigration and Naturalization, shall issue revised regulations for the 
implementation of section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
with respect to the requirement that certain individuals entering the 
United States from Canada by boat obtain a landing permit. The revised 
regulations shall provide that, in the case of a United States citizen 
traveling in a boat of not more than 65 feet in length (including a 
boat used for commercial purposes) on a trip between the United States 
and Canada of not more than 72 hours duration, the citizen need not 
obtain such a permit if the citizen carries a United States passport 
for the duration of the trip, regardless of whether the citizen is a 
passenger on, an owner of, or an operator of, the boat.
                                 <all>
```
Case: 1:20-cv-02101 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-02101 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:2
Case: 1:20-cv-02101 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:3
Case: 1:20-cv-02101 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas J. Calicchio,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04184-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9224 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
{"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 Sends New Research on Orbital ATK Mission to Space Station","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0Cr6eCbKQG\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-sends-new-research-on-orbital-atk-mission-to-space-station\/\">NASA Sends New Research on Orbital ATK Mission to Space Station<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-sends-new-research-on-orbital-atk-mission-to-space-station\/embed\/#?secret=0Cr6eCbKQG\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Sends New Research on Orbital ATK Mission to Space Station” — NASA\" data-secret=\"0Cr6eCbKQG\" 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\/2018\/05\/41529040424_6d57978aa0_o.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":576}
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 Energy Visions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D. Wayne Hartford, 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 to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities 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.



/s/ D. Wayne Hartford

____________________________________

By: D. Wayne Hartford

Chief Executive Officer



March 18, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                            0
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  0
<PP&E>                                            0
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           800
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                         50
<OTHER-SE>                                     (850)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      0
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                      0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
        


</TABLE>
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3236

TREVA R. WOODS,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent.

Treva R. Woods , of Memphis, Tennessee, pro se.

Steven M. Mager , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Ju stice, of Washington, DC, fo r respondent. With him on

the brief were Peter D. Keisler , Acting Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director,

and Franklin E. White, Jr. , Assistant Director.

Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3236

TREVA R. WOODS,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent.

__________ ________________

DECI DED: November 13, 2007

__________________________

Before MAYER, DYK and PROST, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Treva R. Woods appeals t he decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board

dismissing her appeal. Treva R. Woods v. U.S. Postal Serv. , AT-0752-07-0160-I-1

(MSPB Feb. 13, 2007). We affirm

.

This court may only reverse the board’s decisi on if it is arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; obtained without

procedures required by law, rule or regulation; or unsupported by substantial evidence.

See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). We find no error in the board’ s dismissal of Woods’ appeal

because, in a submission dat ed February 12, 2007, she vol untarily withdrew her appeal2007-3236 2 from the board. We conclude, moreover, that Woods has failed to establish the

existence of new or material evidence sufficient to justify the reopening of her appeal.
Motion Granted; Order filed March 27, 2014 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-01082-CR

NO. 14-13-01083-CR

____________

REGINALD DAMON PATTERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 10th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 12CR3442 & 12CR3443

ORDER

Appellant filed a motion to supplement the record with the original of 

State's exhibit 123, a videotape.
The clerk of the 10th District Court is directed to deliver to the clerk of this 

court the original of State's exhibit 123, a videotape, on or before April 10, 2014.

The clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original 

exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon 

completion of inspection, to return the original of State's exhibit 123, a videotape, 

to the clerk of the 10th District Court.

Appellant’s brief is on or before May 12, 2014.

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 628 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 628

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore a 100 percent 
 deduction for business meals and entertainment and the deduction for 
the travel expenses of spouses and others accompanying the taxpayer on 
                               business.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 1997

Mr. Abercrombie (for himself, Ms. Harman, and Mr. Frost) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore a 100 percent 
 deduction for business meals and entertainment and the deduction for 
the travel expenses of spouses and others accompanying the taxpayer on 
                               business.

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

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESS MEALS AND 
              ENTERTAINMENT AND FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES OF SPOUSES AND 
              OTHERS ACCOMPANYING THE TAXPAYER ON BUSINESS.

    (a) Restoration of Deduction for Business Meals and 
Entertainment.--
            (1) General rule.--Paragraph (1) of section 274(n) of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of 
        meal and entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is 
        amended by striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``100 
        percent''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--The subsection heading for 
        section 274(n) of such Code is amended by striking ``50'' and 
        inserting ``100''.
            (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
        shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1996.
    (b) Repeal of Special Limitation on Deduction for Travel Expenses 
of Spouses, Etc.--
            (1) In general.--Subsection (m) of section 274 of such Code 
        is amended by striking paragraph (3).
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
        shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 
        1996.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY MAYS, individually and on behalf )

of a class of similarly situated persons; and JUDIA )

JACKSON, as next friend of KENNETH FOSTER, )

individually and on behalf of a class of similarly )

situated persons, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 20 CV 2134

)

v. )

) Judge Robert W. Gettleman

THOMAS DART, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

On May 1, 2020, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 700 (the “Union”) filed 

a motion for leave to renew motion to intervene as of right or, in the alternative, for reconsideration 

(Doc. 82). The reason for reconsideration was this court’s denial of the original motion to 

intervene because the Union had not submitted a proposed pleading with its first motion (Doc. 81). 

Because the Union has since done so, the court agrees that the motion to intervene should be 

decided on the merits, and therefore grants the motion to reconsider.

Plaintiffs have represented that they have no objection to the Union’s motion to intervene. 

Defendant Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, has objected to the Union’s motion, arguing that 

the Union has failed to specify the potential harm that might be caused to its members’ rights 

granted by its Collective Bargaining Agreement and the terms of employment or employee health 

and welfare contained in that agreement. On the contrary, the Union has articulately explained that

the relief sought by plaintiffs, if ultimately awarded, could have a direct impact on the safety and 

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 111 Filed: 06/02/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2989
2

welfare of the guards and staff at the Cook County Jail, as well as the investigators who are tasked 

with supervising any inmates who might be released, as sought by plaintiffs. 

Although the court anticipates that many, if not most, of the Union’s interests will be 

adequately represented by the Defendant, defendant has not raised that ground in support of his 

opposition to the Union’s motion to intervene. There may well be issues that may arise in this 

complex and dynamic case in which the Union’s members have interests separate from those of 

their employer. That is all that is required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). 

For these reasons, the Union’s motion to intervene (Doc. 82) is granted.

ENTER: June 2, 2020

__________________________________________

Robert W. Gettleman

United States District Judge

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 111 Filed: 06/02/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2990