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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 961 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 961

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the requirement 
  that States pay unemployment compensation on the basis of services 
                     performed by election workers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 1997

   Mr. Upton (for himself and Mr. Farr of California) 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 eliminate the requirement 
  that States pay unemployment compensation on the basis of services 
                     performed by election workers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) paragraph (3) 
of section 3309(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
exception for certain services) is amended by striking ``or'' at the 
end of subparagraph (D), by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph 
(E), and by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(F) as an election official or election worker if 
                the amount of remuneration received by the individual 
                during the calendar year for services as an election 
                official or election worker is less than $1,000;''.
    (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to services 
performed after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-4-2006

In Re: Wallace

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-4934

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Wallace " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1792.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1792
1

HPS-13 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 05-4934

________________

IN RE: MARGARET WALLACE,

 Petitioner.

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to Civ. No. 04-cv-00819)

_____________________________________

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

December 16, 2005

BEFORE: SCIRICA, CHIEF JUDGE, WEIS and GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES

 (Filed: January 4, 2006) 

_______________________

 OPINION

_______________________

PER CURIAM.

Margaret Wallace asks that we issue a writ of mandamus directing

Honorable R. Barclay Surrick to recuse himself because he has failed to rule on alleged

attorney fraud that Wallace has documented in the record. Wallace additionally asks this

Court to adjudicate the issues of attorney fraud she presented to the District Court. For

the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition. 
The District Court dismissed Wallace’s Complaint on November 18, 2005,

pursuant to Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984). 

Wallace has appealed from that order. See C.A. 05-5216. 

Thus, we will dismiss this mandamus petition as moot.
{"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’s LDSD Project Completes Second Experimental Test Flight","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"mzqxVgLolI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasas-ldsd-project-completes-second-experimental-test-flight\/\">NASA’s LDSD Project Completes Second Experimental Test Flight<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasas-ldsd-project-completes-second-experimental-test-flight\/embed\/#?secret=mzqxVgLolI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA’s LDSD Project Completes Second Experimental Test Flight” — NASA\" data-secret=\"mzqxVgLolI\" 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\/2015\/06\/pia19684.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":429}
{"id":10795,"count":18,"description":"","link":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/science-research\/heliophysics\/space-weather\/solar-flares\/","name":"Solar Flares","slug":"solar-flares","taxonomy":"category","parent":9480,"meta":{"redirect":"","media-tag":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/10795"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/taxonomies\/category"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/9480"}],"wp:post_type":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts?categories=10795"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/hdsnav?categories=10795"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topic?categories=10795"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gallery?categories=10795"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/reference?categories=10795"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/mission?categories=10795"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/feature?categories=10795"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/press-release?categories=10795"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/stem-content?categories=10795"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/people?categories=10795"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/event?categories=10795"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/image-article?categories=10795"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/nasa-blog?categories=10795"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages?categories=10795"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/migration?categories=10795"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/podcast?categories=10795"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00197

- CR

Oscar G. Hernandez
v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 226th District Court of Bexar County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018CR2688

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered thi s cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

. The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
February 10, 2022
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Alivia R. Carruth","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/arcarrut\/","title":"CubeSat Laser Infrared CrosslinK (CLICK)","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rt51OSOMuv\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/click\/\">CubeSat Laser Infrared CrosslinK (CLICK)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/click\/embed\/#?secret=rt51OSOMuv\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“CubeSat Laser Infrared CrosslinK (CLICK)” — NASA\" data-secret=\"rt51OSOMuv\" 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\/2019\/05\/sstp-click-5.gif?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, R. Steven Hamner, certify that:



|1) | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Medical Properties Trust, Inc.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2) | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3) | Based on my knowledge, the other financial information included in this report is fairly presented in all material respects as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                                     
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2012 |  | /s/ R. Steven Hamner                                
|                   |  | R. Steven Hamner                                    
|                   |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Blann *v.*Smith.

If the obligor of a title-bond had no title to the premises at the time the deed was to be executed, the obligee may sue on the bond without having demanded the deed.

*Friday, June*1.

ERROR to the *Sullivan*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

Debt on a penal bond. The defendant below craved *oyer*of the bond and condition. The latter is, that *518the former should be void, provided the defendant conveyed the plaintiff, on or before a specified time, the title in fee-simple, by deed of special warranty, to a certain tract of land. 3?lea> readiness to perform by conveying title according to the condition of the bond. Replication, that at the time when by the condition the title should have been conveyed to the plaintiff, the defendant had no title in fee-simple to the land, and that he has never since had such a title, and that he could not, at the time specified in the condition, nor at any time since, execute a deed conveying a title in fee-simple. Ceneral demurrer to the replication and joinder. The Court overruled the demurrer, and rendered final judgment for the plaintiff on the verdict of a jury of inquiry.

*S. Judah,*for the plaintiff.

*D. M’Donald,*for the defendant.

We think the replication assigns a sufficient breach, and that the demurrer was correctly overruled. To say that the defendant had no title, and could not convey one, is surely equivalent to saying that he did not convey a title. Besides, this manner of assigning the breach was proper in this case, because it shows an excuse for not demanding the deed before suit. The utter inability of the defendant to convey, dispensed with the necessity of the demand, as the law does not require a vain or nugatory thing to be done.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with costs. To be certified, &c.
Prepared and filed by St Ives Burrups


Exhibit 10.12C






 2nd Amendment

AMENDMENT TO LEASE – EXPANSION

THIS AMENDMENT is executed
  at Salt Lake City, Utah between Salt Lake Research Park Associates,
  a New Mexico Limited Partnership, by BGK Realty, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
  as General Partner, Landlord, and NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. a Delaware
  Corporation., Tenant, for the premises located at 420 Chipeta Way, Suites
  140, 200 & 202 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108.

Landlord and Tenant being parties
  to that certain Lease dated June 3, 1994 and as amended May 14,
  1995 hereby express their mutual desire and intent to increase the rentable
  area of the Leased Premises by 10,570 square feet (hereafter referred
  to as “Expansion Space”) effective July 1, 1997 and
  amend by this writing those terms, covenants as hereinafter provided.

	 	Section 2.  Leased Premises
      and Rentable Area. This Section shall be adjusted to provide as follows:
      That portion of the 1st and 2nd floors of the building more fully shown
      on the Floor Plan attached hereto as Exhibit “A” – Expansion
      Space.The Rentable Area of the Premises shall hereafter mean: approximately
      44,187 square feet.


	 	 
	 	Section 4. Term. The term
      for the Expansion Space shall be coterminous with the existing Lease.


	 	 
	 	Section 5. Rent. This
      Section shall be adjusted to provide as follows: The Rent for the Expansion
      Space shall be One Hundred Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-Eight and
      No/100 Dollars ($110,988.00) per annum, payable in monthly installments
      in the amount of Nine Thousand Two Hundred Forty-Nine and No/100 Dollars
      ($9,249.00) in lawful money of the United States.


	 	 
	 	Section 7. Operating Expenses.
      Tenant's Proportionate Share shall be adjusted to 39.4%.
	 	 
	Except as modified herein, all
      terms and conditions of the Office Lease shall remain in full force and
      effect.


	 	 	 
	Landlord:	 	Tenant:
	 	 	 
	Salt Lake Research Park Associates, a New
      Mexico Limited Partnership	 	NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
	 	 	 
	By:     BGK
      Realty, Inc.

      	 	 
	Its:     General
      Partner	 	 
	 	 	 
	By:     /s/
      Cheryl S. Willoughby 	 	By:     /s/
      Robert K. [Illegible]
	Title:  Senior
      Vice President	 	Title:  Vice
      President, Finance
	Execution Date: September 11, 1996	 	Execution Date: September 4, 1996
9046.

#### Clyde *v.*Steger *&*Sons Piano Manufacturing Co.

Jenkins, J.

The contract of an infant, except for necessaries, being voidable, may be repudiated by him either during minority or within a *193reasonable time thereafter. *Bell*v. *Swainsboro Fertilizer Co.,*12 *Ga. App.*81 (76 S. E. 756). “If, however, the infant receives property or other valuable consideration, and after arrival at age retains possession of sueh property, or enjoys the proceeds of sueh valuable consideration, such a ratification of the contract shall bind him.” Civil-Code (1910), § 4233. By the terms of this section, no attempted repudiation of liability under sueh a voidable contract can be effective unless accompanied by a surrender of such property acquired thereunder as may still remain in his hands. He can not hold it and make use of its possession as a basis of further negotiation. In order that a tender of the property so received and held shall operate as the equivalent of its actual return, and so prevent a ratification of the voidable contract, the tender must be unconditional. Civil Code (1910), § 4322. A tender fails to be absolute even though the only condition accompanying it is such as to impose the performance of a duty actually . owing by the one to whom the purported tender is made. *Elder*v. *Johnson,*115 *Ga.*691 (42 S. E. 51). Thus, where a minor purchases certain personal property, and in part payment therefor turns over certain other property and for the remainder of the purchase-price executes his note, he can not, in a suit brought on the note after he has attained his majority, dispute its jmlidity - on the ground of his minority at the time the note was executed, where it appears that he still retains possession of the property acquired under the purchase, although it be further shown that he offered and still offers to return the purchased property on the' condition that the other property given by him to the seller in part payment therefor should first be surrendered back. The mere proposal to rescind the contract,' wherein only, a conditional tender 'of the purchased property is made, is not tantamount to actual repudiation.

Decided April 11, 1918.

Complaint; from Fulton superior court—Judge Pendleton. May *21,*1917.

*Moore & Pomeroy, Charles E. Cotterill,*for plaintiff in error.

*Bell, Ellis & Bell, Joseph W. & John B. Humphries,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, G. J., and Luhe, J., concur.*
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.11.1


                            TRUST AMENDMENT NUMBER 1

                                MCGRATH RENTCORP

                    EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP TRUST AGREEMENT

     McGrath RentCorp, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of
Paragraph L of the McGrath RentCorp Employee Stock Ownership Trust Agreement,
does hereby amend said Trust Agreement, as follows:

The Trust Agreement is hereby amended by removing Union Bank as Trustee and
adding Delight Saxton and Thomas J. Sauer as Trustees.

     This Amendment to said Trust Agreement shall be effective as of August 31,
2001.

                                        MCGRATH RENTCORP


Date:  July 31, 2001                    By /s/ DENNIS C. KAKURES
                                          ---------------------------
                                          Dennis C. Kakures, President

(SEAL)
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
Annual Report of Otelco Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Weaver, 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 my 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 results
of operations of the Company.   /s/
  Michael D. WeaverMichael
  D. WeaverChief
  Executive OfficerMarch 31,
  2005   A
signed original 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.
8971.

#### Jordon *et al. v.*Colquitt National Bank.

Decided March 13, 1918.

Complaint; from city court of Miller comity—Judge Geer. June 15, 1917.

*P. D. Rich,*for plaintiffs in error. *Billie B. Bush,*contra.

Jenkins, J.

The note sued on had been previously held as collateral by the bank in whose name suit was brought. At the trial the bank filed its motion to dismiss the suit brought in its name, in which it was alleged that neither then nor at the time the suit was instituted did it own any interest in the note. It appears from the undisputed testimony of the bank president, given in support of this motion, that, previously to the time suit was filed, the bank had turned back and surrendered the note, sued on to the payee, with instructions that suit should not be brought in the bank’s name. *Held,*that under these circumstances the bank’s motion to dismiss the suit should have been sustained, notwithstanding the fact that the blank indorsement on the note may have remained uncaneeled. Civil Code (1910), § 5516; *Bomar*v. *Equitable Mortgage Co.,*111 *Ga.*143 (36 S. E. 601); *Bell*v. *Whitestone,*18 *Ga. App.*536 (89 S. E. 1050).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Wade, G. J., and Luloe, J., concur.*