alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### C. Andel *v.*A. J. Rooden.

Actions — Defense.

One guilty of laches in a defense, depending on a third party to look after his interest, cannot complain of a judgment against him.

APPEAL EROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

May 2, 1871.

Opinion oe the Court bt

Judge Peters:

Tbe prominent and controlling facts in this case are inconsistent •with the claim of appellant to the property in controversy.

After this suit was instituted he was warned by the attorney to defend for him, of i.ts pendency and objects, before the judgment for the sale of the property was rendered, and then made no defense, but contented himself by saying that Kloninger had some money of his, which he had been in possession of since 1860, but the amount he did not recollect, and gave his attorney no direction or authority to make any defense for him, and asserted no claim to the property. Nor did he, in that letter, claim to have advanced any money to pay for the property.

The surety for the purchase money was procured by Kloninger, and money to make payment borrowed by him, and the' facts developed show that appellant was not in condition to take money from his business to invest in real estate. Tbe $600 which he professes to have advanced were borrowed, according to his own showing, $1,000 for the second installment were borrowed by Kloninger from the Farmers’ Bank without any effort on his part to raise the money, and these two sums were not equal to the purchase price, and it can not be credited that he had money to invest in real estate in a city in a different State and remote from his business and residence when the greater part, indeed all but about $300 of the purchase price was borrowed, and that refunded by installments and renewal of the notes.

*608Rodman, *for appellant*

*Vance &*Teaman, *for appellee.*

Besides, the account that Kloninger gives of the money advanced is complicated, inconsistent with itself, and unsatisfactory.

We, therefore, concur in- the opinion of the court below, and adjudge that the judgment should be *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. 

Karen Lynn Woodard, 

Defendant.

No. CR-16-105-01-PHX-DLR

ORDER OF DETENTION 

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

Probation were held on March 31, 2017. 

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

waived her 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 her burden of 

proof by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), FED.R.CRIM.P., 

that she 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 31st day of March, 2017. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:16-cr-00105-DLR Document 42 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

SKY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 1:20-cv-02114 

Honorable Edmond E. Chang 

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND TO RESET HEARING DATE 

Defendant Fair Isaac Corporation (“Defendant”), by and through its undersigned counsel, 

respectfully requests that this Court enter the parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding 

Time to Respond to Class Action Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. If granted, the motion 

would reset the current case deadlines as follows: 

 The deadline for Defendant to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint 

shall be extended until May 25, 2020. 

 The initial status hearing is stricken and reset for June 30, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. 

Dated: April 16, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Britt M. Miller 

Michael A. Olsen 

Britt M. Miller 

J. Gregory Deis 

Matthew D. Provance 

MAYER BROWN LLP 

71 South Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 782-0600 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 23 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:82
molsen@mayerbrown.com

bmiller@mayerbrown.com

gdeis@mayerbrown.com

mprovance@mayerbrown.com

Counsel for Defendant Fair Isaac 

Corporation 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 23 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:83
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Britt M. Miller, an attorney, hereby certify that on April 16, 2020, I caused a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND 

DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND TO RESET HEARING 

DATE to be filed and served electronically via the Court’s CM/ECF system. 

/s/ Britt M. Miller 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 23 Filed: 04/16/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:84
EXHIBIT
32.2








CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Report of Physical Property Holdings Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Darrie Lam, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:








1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.








/s/ Darrie
Lam


Darrie
Lam


Chief
Financial Officer





September
12, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

SUPERHYPE TAPES, LTD.,

PLAINTIFF,

V.

AANSTORE, ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-01589

JUDGE ELAINE E. BUCKLO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SUNIL R. HARJANI

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal, without prejudice, as to the following Defendant(s) identified on Schedule “A” of the 

Complaint:

NO. DEFENDANT

20 SHOWHOME Store

328 CHARMHOME Store

326 CanvasPainting Store

233 thanya_kt249

183 YUUUKO Store

Dated: July 16, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Alison Carter

Ann Marie Sullivan

Alison Carter

AM Sullivan Law, LLC

1440 W. Taylor St., Suite 515

Chicago, Illinois 60607

Telephone: 224-258-9378

E-mail: ams@amsullivanlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document was electronically filed on July 16, 2020 with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF

system, which will automatically send an email notification ofsuch filing to all registered attorneys 

of record.

/s/ Alison Carter

Alison Carter
9753.

#### Christopher *et al. v.*Georgian Company.

Wade, C. J.

1. Where parties sign a bond as guarantors, they can not set up, by way of defense to a suit thereon, that the instrument was executed by reason of a contemporaneous parol understanding with the principal debtor that they were not to be bound,, and for a purpose *708wholly at variance with its plain tenor and import, as this would in effect be merely adding to and varying the terms of a written contract, by parol evidence. Civil Code, §§ 4268, 5788; *Hirsch*v. *Oliver,*91 *Ga.*554 (2), 560 (18 S. E. 354); *Connor*v. *Lasseter,*98 *Ga.*708 (25 S. E. 830); *Capps*v. *Edwards,*130 *Ga.*146 (4), 150 (60 S. E. 455); *Biggers*v. *Equitable Mfg. Co.,*124 *Ga.*1045 (53 S. E. 674); *Athens Mutual Ins. Co.*v. *Evans,*132 *Ga.*703 (3), 708 (64 S. E. 993); *Brack*v. *Brantley Co.,*134 *Ga.*495 (67 S. E. 1128); *Coleman*v. *Barber,*137 *Ga.*22 (72 S. E. 399); *Bush*v. *Roberts,*4 *Ga. App.*531 (5), 532 (62 S. E. 92); *Campbell*v. *Allcahest Lyceum System,*10 *Ga. App.*839 (74 S. E. 443).

Decided October 16, 1918.

'Complaint; from city court of Floyd county—Judge Nunnally. March 5, 1918..

*John W. Bale, M. B. Eubanks,*for plaintiffs in error.

*T. W. Lipscomb, J. L. Deadwyler,*contra.

(a) The written contract sued upon being complete, unambiguous, and explicit as to terms, the trial judge did not err in rejecting a proffered amendment which attempted to engraft upon its express terms a contemporaneous parol agreement.

2. The action of the trial court in allowing a certain letter to be admitted in evidence over the objection of the defendants is not such error (if error at all) as would require a reversal, since a prima facie case was made out regardless of this evidence.

3. “Prima facie.proof of the correctness of an account is made by the introduction of the testimony- of witnesses who swear that they had knowledge of the items, made memoranda of the same, and turned them over to a bookkeeper (though they do not at the trial remember the details of the items), supplemented by the testimony of the bookkeeper that he correctly copied these memoranda into the.account- (though the bookkeeper had no personal information as to the correctness of the items).” *Swift*v. *Oglesby,*8 *Ga. App.*540 (4), 543 (70 S. E. 97). “The Civil Code, § 5769, does not say that books of account *must*be put in evidence as proof of such accounts, but provides merely that they *may*be admitted.” *Smith*v. *Southern Spring Bed Co.,*16 *Ga. App.*449, 451 (85 S. E. 612). “As a general rule, the• testimony of persons who have knowledge of the facts from which the books are made up is, as to those facts, primary evidence, and the books themselves are admissible only by way of corroboration.” *Harper*v. *Hammond,*13 *Ga. App.*238 (3), 240 (79 S. E. 44). Applying these decisions to the evidence adduced in this cause, a case was made out, and there being no evidence whatever introduced in behalf of the defendants, the trial judge did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenhins and Luhe, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Vincent Rossi, Chief Executive Officer of St. Bernard Software, Inc.
(the Small Business Issuer), do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code that:



| | (1) | the Small Business Issuers Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report), to which this statement is filed as an exhibit,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1034 as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Small Business Issuer.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: April 2, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/    VINCENT
ROSSI   
|                     |  |     |  | Vincent Rossi          
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
* 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50141 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JUAN JOSE PEREZ-OCHOA, also known as Jose Flores-Garcia Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-533-ALL
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Jose Perez-Ochoa raises arguments that are foreclosed by A lmendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. U nited States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 5, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"Aeronautics Cryptograms","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"z5ZuRbH9eu\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/aeronautics-cryptograms\/\">Aeronautics Cryptograms<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/aeronautics-cryptograms\/embed\/#?secret=z5ZuRbH9eu\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Aeronautics Cryptograms” — NASA\" data-secret=\"z5ZuRbH9eu\" 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\/2020\/06\/aeronautics-cryptogram.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":751}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0618

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

AUSTIN TYLER JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 15, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 9 2022

03/09/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0618
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-11-1999
<CASH>                                           1,255
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,142
<INVENTORY>                                     12,415
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,100
<PP&E>                                          95,365
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,687
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,958
<BONDS>                                         70,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            8,537
<PREFERRED>                                     26,053
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,725
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,026
<SALES>                                        144,536
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               144,536
<CGS>                                           89,469
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,914
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,520
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,367)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        90
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,457)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,457)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Unte Moore, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeals from two judgments of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Michael A. Martinelli, J.), rendered November 20, 2013. Each judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), seeking leave to withdraw as counsel.</p><p>ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the appeals are consolidated for purposes of disposition; and it is further,</p><p>ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.</p><p>We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to <i>Anders v California</i> (386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (<i>see id.</i>; <i>Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.]</i>, 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; <i>People v Paige</i>, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; <i>cf. People v Gonzalez</i>, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).</p><p>Marano, P.J., Iannacci and Garguilo, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: April 06, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
IV

House Calendar No. 12

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 101

[Report No. 105–33]

Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 91) providing amounts

for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives

in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 19, 1997

Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 91)

providing amounts for the expenses of certain committees

of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred

Fifth Congress.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of

3 order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 91)

4 providing amounts for the expenses of certain committees

5 of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Fifth

6 Congress. The resolution shall be considered as read for
2

HRES 101 RH

1 amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute

2 recommended by the Committee on House Oversight now

3 printed in the resolution shall be considered as adopted.

4 The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

5 the resolution, as amended, to final adoption without in6 tervening motion or demand for division of the question

7 except: (1) 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled

8 by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

9 Committee on House Oversight; (2) the further amend10 ment specified in the report of the Committee on Rules

11 accompanying this resolution, if offered by a Member des12 ignated in the report, which shall be considered as read,

13 shall be in order without intervention of any point of

14 order, and shall be separately debatable for the time speci15 fied in the report equally divided and controlled by the

16 proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recom17 mit.

House Calendar No. 12

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 101

[Report No. 105–33]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the resolution (H.

tives in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.certain committees of the House of RepresentaRes. 91) providing amounts for the expenses of

MARCH 19, 1997

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
Exhibit 10.9(b)
  
  Re:
    
    Management Agreement Renewals
   
    
    Bristol Energy Fund L.P.
    
    CMF SandRidge Master Fund L.P.
    
    Bohdan Mysko
    
    CMF SandRidge Feeder (Cayman) Ltd.
    
    UDC International
    
    Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P.
    
    Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P.
    
    Tactical Diversified Futures fund L.P.
    
    Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.
    
    Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P. II
    By:
    
    /s/ Jennifer Magro

Jennifer MagroChief Financial Officer & DirectorSANDRIDGE CAPITAL, L.P.By:
    
    /s/ Andrew M. RowePrint Name:  Andrew M. RoweJM/sr
 65