alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Honorable Tom C. King 

State Auditor 

Austin, Texas 

Bear Sir: opinion No. O-1480 

Re: Validity of old age assistance 

warrants held by investors. 

We are pleased to comply with your request for OUT opinion on the 

following question submitted by your letter of September 22nd: 

"If a financial institution or investor should buy $15O,OOO.OC 

old age assistance warrants from receipients of old age assistance. or the holders of such warrants, and heI. them in 

his/its portfolio, would such holding in any manner affect the 

legality of the instrumanta 

prior to the running of the 

warrants?" 

As you point out in your letter, 

of Texas, 195, as amended, Acts 

Chapter 242, 8 1, provides: 

as an obligation of the state 

statute of limitation on state 

Article 4371, Revised Civil Statutes 

1931, k2nd Legislature, p. 396, 

*The Treasurer shall contersign and pay all warrants drawn 

by the Comutroller on the Treasury which are authorized by 

Law. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except a 

the warrants of the Comptroller, and no warrant shall be 

paid by the Treasurer unless presented for payment within 

two year5 from the close of the fiscal year in which such 

warrant was issued, but claims for the payment of such 

warrants may be presented to the Legislature for appropriations to be made from which such claims may be paid." 

Old age assistance warrants issued against the "State Department of Public 

Welfare Pund" under authority of Senate Bill No. 36, Acts 1939, 46th 

Legislature, are unquestionably valid obligation5 of the State payable out 

of said fund. Such warrants are transferable, though not negotiable. 

Their validity cannot be in anyway affected by the fact that they may be 

transferred to investors and held by them so long as they are presented to 

the State Treasurer for payment "within two year5 from the close of the 

fiscal year" in which such warrants are issued. Nor is suoh warrant 

holder's security of payment impaired for failure to present such 

warrants promptly to the Treasurer for payment. Article 4386, Revised 

Civil Statutes, control5 the payment of these warrants and provides that: 
Hon. Tom C. King, Page #2 O-1480 

,I 

. . . in the event of a question and necessity arising as 

to the priority of payment of any such warrants, they shall 

be paid in order of their serial number . . .II 

In accordance with this Article the Treasurer is required to maintain 

in any fund out of which outstanding warrants are payable, sufficient 

money to pay such outstanding warrants at all times, before he may pay 

other warrants bearing a subsequent serial number. See Williamson 

vs. Franklin County, 94 S. W. (2d) 1190. 

Yours very truly 

A!LTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

51 Walter R. Koch 

BY 

Walter R. Koch 

Assistant 

WPiK:N/ldw 

APROVFaD SEP. 25, 1939 

s/W. F. Moore 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORXEY -L 

APPROVED 

OPINION 

COMMJTEE 

BP B. W. B. 

CHAIRMAN
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 2 , 2024

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 24

- 00214

- CV

CHERYL E. THOMAS , Appellant

V.

GREGORY MILLER , Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 47809

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed February 20, 20 24 . The clerk’s record

was filed April 15, 20 24

. There is no reporter’s record. Appellant has not filed a

brief.

On June 14, 20 24

, we issued a notice stating that unless appellant filed a

brief within 10 days , the appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).

Appellant filed no brief or other response. We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Spain and Poissant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          17,490
<SECURITIES>                                     4,497
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                       365
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,768
<PP&E>                                           6,446
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,577
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,686
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,000
<COMMON>                                        33,965
<OTHER-SE>                                     (23,489)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,477
<SALES>                                         14,304
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,703
<CGS>                                              470
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,378
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    80
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (132)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         8
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (140)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.04)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

                        OFFICER'S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE



I, Andrew J. Cederoth,  a duly authorized  representative of Navistar  Financial
Corporation, the Servicer, certify that:

1.     I  have  reviewed  the  annual   report  and  other  reports   containing
       distribution information for the period covered by the annual report;

2.     The absence in these reports, to the best of my knowledge,  of any untrue
       statement of material  fact or omission of a material  fact  necessary to
       make the statements made, in light of the circumstances  under which such
       statements were made, not misleading;

3.     The  inclusion  in these  reports,  to the best of my  knowledge,  of the
       financial  information  required to be provided to the trustee  under the
       governing documents of the issuer; and

4.     Compliance  by the Servicer with its  servicing  obligations  and minimum
       servicing standards, except as noted below:

       The Company was noncompliant with the requirement that custodial bank
       accounts and related bank clearing accounts are reconciled within 45 days
       after the cutoff date as specified in item I.1.b in the minimum servicing
       standards.

5.     That no default in performance of any obligations has occurred.




                                   By:  /s/ ANDREW J. CEDEROTH
                                            Andrew J. Cederoth
                                            Vice President and Treasurer


                                            January 31, 2005
#### Susan Vick *v.*John F. Barclay.

Descent and Distribution — Devise in Fee Simple.

A devise in real and personal estate to, children in fee, is not made defeasible by the declaration “should either of my children die without children, the surviving children to inherit.” It is not a limitation of the title or a restraint on the jus disperendi.

APPEAL FROM LOGAN CIRCUIT COURT.

March 5, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson :

The devise to the testator’s children of real and *personal*estate *78in fee is not made defeasible by tbe declaration “should either of my children die without children, the surviving children to inherit,” -but that super-addition would be most consistently interpreted as a mere testamentary recognition of the law of descent and distribution, and not as a limitation of the title or a restraint-on the *jus disperendi.*

Rhea, *for appellant.*

Wherefore, the judgment of -the circuit court limiting the estate to a defeasible fee is reversed, and the cause remanded.
#### Wm. Berry's Admr. *v.*Caleb Ratcliff, Sent.

Bills and Notes — Note by Corporation — When Individual Note of Obligors.

*A*note signed by a corporation, by *A*and B, as officers, but in the body of same using the word “we,” held, to convey an individual liability of the officers signing same.

Same — Consideration.

A purchase of a right-of-way for a corporation, held, to be sufficient consideration to uphold a note given by the individual directors of the corporation.

APPEAL FROM BATH CIRCUIT COURT.

October 7, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

Although the payees of the note executed to Ratcliff on the 15th of March, 1867, describe themselves as president 'and directors of the Sharpsburg and Owensville Turnpike Company it is evident from its wording that it was. intended that it should be their personal obligation. The circumstances under which it was made indicate that Ratcliff would not have accepted the obligation of the company in discharge of his claim. This fací was understood by Berry and the pronoun *“we"*was used in the body of the note for the purpose of making it the individual undertaking- of those who signed it, and in our opinion it had that effect. The plea of want of consideration cannot be sustained. The right of way over the eleven acres of land and the one of the stone quarry constitute a sufficient consideration to uphold the note. The Turnpike Company was not divested of any part of this consideration by the sale of the land to Gasset nor of Gasset’s sale to Marshall. They both seem to have had notice of the rights acquired by the company under their written agreement with Ratcliff submitting the question of damages on account of the stone quarry and right of way over the land to referees. And Marshall in his deposition taken in this case states that the company is now in the enjoyment of all they acquired from Ratcliff, and expressly recognizes their right to the same. *373The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

*Nesbitt & Qudgell, for appellant.*

*Holt, Hurt, for appellee.*
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 

Mbonfal Hamadicko, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Albert Carter, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV15-2125 PHX DGC (ESW)

ORDER 

 Petitioner Mbonfal Hamadicko has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1. United States Magistrate Eileen S. Willett has 

issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the petition be 

dismissed without prejudice. Doc. 13. No objection has been filed, which relieves the 

Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(3); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court will accept the R&R and deny the petition. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The R&R (Doc. 13) is accepted. 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is dismissed without 

prejudice. 

3. A certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal are denied.

Case 2:15-cv-02125-DGC Document 14 Filed 10/05/16 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 

4. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. 

Dated this 4th day of October, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-02125-DGC Document 14 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 207 (Monday, October 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63918-63919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25443]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Interest Rate on Overdue Debts

    Section 30.18 of the Department of Health and Human Services' 
claims collection regulations (45 CFR part 30) provides that the 
Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest, which is determined 
and fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury after considering private 
consumer rates of interest on the date that the Department of Health 
and Human Services becomes entitled to recovery. The rate cannot be 
lower than the Department of Treasury's current value of funds rate or 
the applicable rate determined from the ``Schedule of Certified 
Interest Rates with Range of Maturities'' unless the Secretary waives 
interest in whole or part, or a different rate is prescribed by 
statute, contract, or repayment agreement. The Secretary of the 
Treasury may revise this rate quarterly. The Department of Health and 
Human Services publishes this rate in the Federal Register.
    The current rate of 10\3/4\%, as fixed by the Secretary of the 
Treasury, is certified for the quarter ended September 30, 2014. This 
rate is based on the Interest

[[Page 63919]]

Rates for Specific Legislation, ``National Health Services Corps 
Scholarship Program (42 U.S.C. 250(B)(1)(A))'' and ``National Research 
Service Award Program (42 U.S.C. 288(c)(4)(B)).'' This interest rate 
will be applied to overdue debt until the Department of Health and 
Human Services publishes a revision.

    Dated: October 16, 2014.
David C. Horn,
Director, Office of Financial Policy and Reporting.
[FR Doc. 2014-25443 Filed 10-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-P
<PAGE>
                               EXHIBIT 11.1

<TABLE>
                        MILLER EXPLORATION COMPANY
                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
<CAPTION>
                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED          NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                     SEPTEMBER 30, 1998          SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
                                                    ---------------------       ---------------------
                                                    (In thousands, except       (In thousands, except
                                                       per share data)             per share data)
<S>                                                       <C>                         <C>
BASIC EARNINGS (LOSS) PER 
   SHARE
Net income (loss)                                          $   100                     $(4,879)
Shares
   Weighted average shares outstanding                      12,493                      10,702
                                                           -------                     -------
Basic earnings (loss) per share                            $  0.01                     $ (0.46)
                                                           =======                     =======

DILUTED EARNINGS  (LOSS) PER
   SHARE
Net income (loss)                                          $   100                     $(4,879)
Shares
   Weighted average shares outstanding                      12,602                      10,702
                                                           -------                     -------
Diluted earnings (loss) per share                          $  0.01                     $ (0.46)
                                                           =======                     =======
</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Dede Dinius","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/darin-l-diniusnasa-gov\/","title":"Sean E. McMorrow","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pfPx2DhDEL\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/sean-e-mcmorrow\/\">Sean E. McMorrow<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/sean-e-mcmorrow\/embed\/#?secret=pfPx2DhDEL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Sean E. McMorrow” — NASA\" data-secret=\"pfPx2DhDEL\" 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\/2021\/04\/afrc2018-0001-26-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CHAPTER 4 CORP., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SUPREMETSHIRT.US, et al., 

 Defendants 

Case No. 20-cv-02444 

Judge John Robert Blakey 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings 

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT 

WHEREAS, a judgment was entered in the above action on July 27, 2020 [68], in favor of 

Plaintiff Chapter 4 Corp. (“Plaintiff”) and against the Defendants Identified in Schedule A in the 

amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) per Defaulting Defendant, and Supreme 

acknowledges payment of an agreed upon damages amount, costs, and interest and desires to 

release this judgment and hereby fully and completely satisfy the same as to the following 

Defendants: 

Defendant Name Line No. 

anhuihejutianyishangmaoyouxiangongsi 67 

Realcome 111 

THEREFORE, full and complete satisfaction of said judgment as to the above-referenced 

Defendants are hereby acknowledged, and the Clerk of the Court is hereby authorized and directed 

to make an entry of the full and complete satisfaction on the docket of said judgment. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02444 Document #: 71 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2935
2 

Dated this 14th day of August 2020. Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Allyson M. Martin 

Amy C. Ziegler 

Justin R. Gaudio 

Allyson M. Martin 

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. 

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

312.360.0080 

312.360.9315 (facsimile) 

aziegler@gbc.law 

jgaudio@gbc.law 

amartin@gbc.law 

Counsel for Plaintiff Chapter 4 Corp.

Case: 1:20-cv-02444 Document #: 71 Filed: 08/14/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2936
**EXHIBIT31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, R. Scott Stevenson, Chief FinancialOfficer of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fog Cutter Capital GroupInc.;

 

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)   Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)   Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

(a)   Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)   Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: November 13, 2007

 
|   | /s/ R. SCOTT STEVENSON  |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | R. Scott Stevenson      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 22-0377

KAMALAKANNAN SIVANANDAM

v.

THEMESOFT, INC.

§

§

§

§

§

§

Dallas County,

5th District.

September 2, 2022

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case, 

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify 

that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case 

numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under 

the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, KAMALAKANNAN SIVANANDAM, pay all costs 

incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this 

the 7th day of October, 2022.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY