alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jonathan Cooper *v.*Nathaniel Griffin et al.

Writ of Possession.

It is error to issue a writ of possession for more land than that sold under the judgment, and to that extent it may he enjoined.

APPEAL FROM FLEMING CIRCUIT COURT.

October 20, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

After a careful examination of the record in this case and the brief filed by counsel for appellant, we have been unable to perceive the object of this appeal. It seems that Pearce had purchased twenty-five acres of appellant’s land, sold under a judgment foreclosing a mortgage executed 'by appellant to one Evans. That during the pendency of this suit to foreclose the mortgage, Pearce had also purchased, under execution at sheriff’s sale, the balance of the tract of land of which this twenty-five acres was a part. This last purchase had no connection whatever with the suit to foreclose the mortgage. Pearce sold or transferred both of his purchases to the appellee Griffin, and Griffin, by a motion made in the suit to foreclose the mortgage, •obtained a writ of possession. The clerk, in issuing this writ *4not only included the twenty-five acres sold under the judgment, but the writ embraced the whole of appellant’s farm. This present suit was then brought for the purpose of restraining Griffin and all others from enforcing this writ of possession. The petition also alleges that Pearce, when he bought the land, promised that when it was sold by him that all of the'excess over and above paying: his debt and cost should belong to the appellant. A notice was given appellant by the appellee Griffin that on a certain day of the term he would move to dissolve the injunction. This, motion was heard, and the injunction perpetuated except as to the twenty-five acres of land purchased under the judgment foreclosing the mortgage, and a writ of possession awarded the appellee Griffin for this twenty-five acres; of this the appellant makes no complaint and alleges in his petition that he is willing the appellee shall have the possession of the twenty-five acres. No other question seems to have been decided, and as to all other questions the suit is yet pending and undetermined. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

*Cord, for appellant.*

*Botis, for appellees.*
Exhibit 31
                                  ----------


                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------

               I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

               1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all
               reports on Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing
               reports filed in respect of periods included in the year
               covered by this annual report, of CWMBS, Inc., CHL Mortgage
               Pass-Through Trust 2004-7;

               2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports,
               taken as a whole, 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 as of the last
               day of the period covered by this annual report;

               3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing
               information required to be provided to the trustee by the
               master servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar,
               agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these
               reports;

               4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by
               the master servicer under the pooling and servicing, or
               similar, agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual
               compliance review required under that agreement, and except as
               disclosed in the reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its
               obligations under that agreement; and

               5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating
               to the master servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing
               standards based upon the report provided by an independent
               public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with
               the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or
               similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing,
               or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

               In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
               information provided to me by the following unaffiliated
               parties: The Bank of New York, as Trustee.


               Date: March 28, 2005


                                                /s/ Steve Bailey
                                                ----------------
                                                Steve Bailey
                                                Senior Managing Director
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1396

ROGER A. LYNCH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.

(CA-02-3187-HFF)

Submitted: February 13, 2006 Decided: March 6, 2006

Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karen Creech, COVINGTON, PATRICK, HAGINS, STERN & LEWIS, P.A.,

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Theodore D. Willard,

Jr., MONTGOMERY, PATTERSON, POTTS & WILLARD, L.L.P., Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Roger A. Lynch appeals from the district court’s award of

summary judgment to defendant Provident Life and Accident Insurance

Company (“Provident”) in this lawsuit concerning Provident’s denial

of Lynch’s claim for long-term disability benefits under an ERISAgoverned benefits plan. Upon careful consideration of the record

and the parties’ briefs, we are unable to identify any reversible

error. We are therefore content to dispose of this appeal by

adopting the district court’s opinion adopting the magistrate

judge’s recommendations. See Lynch v. Provident Life and Accident

Ins. Co., CA-02-3187-HFF (D.S.C. May 13, 2004). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 158

To express the support of the House of Representatives for programs such

as the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 22, 1997

Mr. DREIER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

RESOLUTION

To express the support of the House of Representatives

for programs such as the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy.

Whereas at a time when more consumers are using credit

than ever before, the financial skills of young adults are

not adequate to cope with the rapid, technologically driven development of new financial products and new ways

to deliver those products;

Whereas lack of financial management skills is a major cause

of rising consumer bankruptcies and family crises, and

generally impairs the health and welfare of the general

public;

Whereas it is critical that students and young adults develop

functional skills in money management, including basic

budgeting, savings, investing, spending, and income;
2

HRES 158 IH

Whereas the House of Representatives commends the

Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy for

its effort to promote personal financial literacy; and

Whereas the House of Representatives supports the Coalition’s objective of promoting education to ensure that

basic personal management skills are attained during the

kindergarten through 12th grade educational experience:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of

2 Representatives that the goal of having young adults

3 who can enter the mainstream of an increasingly

4 complex financial world with confidence and pru5 dence is one which can be advanced through coordi6 nated efforts such as the Jump$tart Coalition for

7 Personal Financial Literacy.

Æ
NO. 07-05-0463-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	JANUARY 4, 2006

	______________________________

	Ex parte R. WAYNE JOHNSON, 

									Relator

									_________________________________

			       On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Relator R. Wayne Johnson, an indigent inmate, seeks a writ of habeas corpus seeking release from the effect of five administrative disciplinary proceedings initiated against him while an inmate.  He contends that during the proceedings he was denied his rights to due process and legal counsel.  We dismiss the petition.

	Our jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus is limited.  Ex parte Layton, 928 S.W.2d 781, 782 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1996, orig. proceeding).  It extends only to those situations wherein a person is restrained of his liberty by virtue of an order, process or commitment  issued by a “‘court or judge.’”  Id.; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. art. 22.221(d) (Vernon 2004).  Nothing in Johnson’s petition illustrates that the administrative disciplinary decisions about which he complains were issued by a court or judge as contemplated by art. 22.221(d).  Thus, he failed to illustrate that we have jurisdiction to consider the matter.

	The petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.	

							Per Curiam
*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR.R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 02-30071

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

FLORETTA SNOW-SORAPURU,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GREYHOUND LINES INC., and (Its Insurer); UNIDENTIFIED

PARTY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 00-CV-3553-F

October 28, 2002

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff Floretta Snow-Sorapuru appeals the district court’s dismissal of her personal injury

suit against defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. under Rule 52(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
-2-

Procedure. Snow-Sorapuru contends that the district court, applying Louisiana law in this diversity

action, erred in finding that her failure to look where she wassitting wasthe sole cause of her alleged

injury from a broken armrest on one of the defendant’s buses. Where a district court has entered

judgment after hearing all the evidence on a crucial issue of fact pursuant to Rule 52(c), its findings

of fact are reviewed only for clear error while its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See

Samson v. Apollo Res., Inc., 242 F.3d 629, 632-33 (5th Cir. 2001). The only evidence presented on

the issue of causation was the testimony of the plaintiff, who stated that she sat down without

looking. Because the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, we affirm. See Ryland v.

Liberty Lloyd’s Ins. Co., 630 So.2d 1289, 1302 (La. 1994) (“Negligence is only actionable where it

is both a cause in fact and a legal cause of the injury.”); Johnson v. Lull Enters., Inc., 663 So.2d 403,

409 (La. Ct. App. 1995) (“Even in a case where some negligence exists, without causation no liability

is created and the negligence is not actionable.”).

AFFIRMED.
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES

This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in 

EEOC v. Personnel Staffing Group, LLC and MVP Workforce, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-3683 (N.D. Ill.), 

resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against 

Personnel Staffing Group, LLC d/b/a Most Valuable Personnel and MVP Workforce, LLC

(“Defendants”). 

In its litigation, EEOC alleged that Defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964, as amended, (“Title VII) by discriminating against classes of individuals on the bases of 

sex and race. 

To resolve the case, Defendants and EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree which 

provides, among other things, that:

1) Defendants will make a monetary payment to resolve the discrimination claims 

against them; 

2) Defendants are enjoined from discriminating against any employee on the basis of 

sex or race;

3) Defendants will not retaliate against any employee who has made allegations of 

discrimination or participated in any way in a proceeding involving discrimination 

under Title VII; 

4) Defendants will provide training on Title VII to all employees in any way involved 

in the hiring and/or assignment process; and

5) Defendants will change their policies and procedures to comply with Title VII. 

The EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of race, 

national origin, color, religion, sex, age, or disability. The EEOC charges no fees and has 

employees who speak languages other than English. If you believe you have been discriminated 

against, you may contact the EEOC at 800-669-4000 or visit EEOC online at 

https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx.

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE

This Notice must remain posted for two and one-half (2 1⁄2) years from the date below 

and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this 

Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to EEOC, PSG/MVP Workforce 

Settlement, 230 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2920, Chicago, IL 60604. 

6/29/20 _____________________________

Date The Honorable John Z. Lee

United States District Court

Case: 1:20-cv-03683 Document #: 10-1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:48
#### Billy C. PADGETT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 04-3006.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2004.

Before MICHEL, CLEVENGER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

MICHEL, Circuit Judge.

Billy Padgett petitions for judicial review of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”), dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Board’s decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was based on its determination that Padgett did not suffer a RIF demotion. Padgett’s petition was submitted for decision following oral argument on October 5, 2004. Because Padgett did not suffer a RIF demotion, we affirm.

In an August 6, 2001, opinion, the undisputed facts of this case were set forth by the administrative judge who heard Padgett’s appeal as follows:

> Appellant occupies the position of Review Clerk, PS-06 at the United States *748Postal Service (USPS) Processing and Distribution Center in Pensacola, Florida. By letter dated May 3, 2001, Larry Nelson, Plant Manager, informed appellant that he was being reassigned to another section of the facility pursuant to provisions of the applicable labor-management agreement. Mr. Nelson informed appellant that he would remain ‘as an unassigned regular PS-06’ working the same tour, and that he would begin work in the new section on May 12, 2001. Appellant subsequently filed the instant appeal, claiming that the agency had subjected him to a reduction-in-force (RIF) action, reducing him to a PS-04 position without affording him appropriate procedural protections.

(Citations omitted.) The administrative judge dismissed Padgett’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Padgett’s reassignment did not “involve a loss of grade or pay” and was merely temporary. Padgett petitioned for review to the full Board, which denied the petition, thus making final the administrative judge’s decision. After waiting approximately one year, Padgett again appealed. The administrative judge again dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that Padgett “has not been officially reassigned or removed from the position of Review Clerk, PS-06” and the full Board again denied the petition for review. Padgett subsequently petitioned for review of the Board’s decision to this Court.

The facts in this case are materially indistinguishable from those of the petitioners in *Hayes v. U.S. Postal Service,*03-3326, 04-3305, who did not bid on lower-grade positions, namely, Lawrence Doherty, Ronald Heaberlin, and Bernard Oeltman. As described more fully in *Hayes,*the Board correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction over Doherty, Heaberlin, and Oeltman. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s decision in this case for the reasons described in *Hayes.*

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit 10AO

     Summary of the Employment Agreement between Haemonetics Corporation and
              Dr. Ulrich Eckert, President Europe and Latin America

The Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Haemonetics GmbH, are parties to an
employment agreement with Dr Ulrich Eckert dated May 27, 2003. The agreement
entitles Mr. Eckert to certain salary and benefits as are customarily made
available, including participation in the Haemonetics GmbH sponsored pension
plan, in exchange for his services as President of Europe and Latin America. The
agreement provides for the continuation of his salary and benefits for up to 18
months in the event of his disability or death. While the agreement is for an
indefinite period of time, either party to the agreement can terminate the
agreement with a termination period of at least twelve months and up to
twenty-three months, depending upon the timing of the notice. Additionally, Mr.
Eckert's employment could be terminated immediately by the Company; however he
would be entitled to a continuation of salary and benefits for the termination
period.
**Order filed December 1, 2016**

**In The**

**Eleventh Court of Appeals**

**___________**

**No. 11-16-00093-CR**

**___________**

**FRANKLIN LEE RAY, Appellant**

**V.**

**THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee**

**On Appeal from the 238th District Court**

**Midland County, Texas**

**Trial Court Cause No. CR39139**

**O R D E R**

	This appeal has become unduly stalled due in part to the failure of Appellant’s court-appointed counsel, Alvaro Martinez Jr., to file an appellate brief.  Appellant’s brief was originally due on August 29, 2016.  Appellant subsequently filed a motion for extension of time in which to file the brief, and this court granted the motion, which extended the deadline to September 28, 2016.  On October 5, 2016, on the Court’s own motion, we granted an extension and directed that the brief be filed on or before October 20, 2016.  Appellant filed a second motion for extension of time in which to file the brief, and this court granted the motion, which extended the deadline to October 27, 2016.  On November 8, 2016, on the Court’s own motion, an extension was granted and directed that the brief be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. on November 18, 2016, with the following language added: “At that time, Appellant’s brief must be electronically filed through the eFileTexas portal.  If the brief is not filed by this date and time, Appellant’s counsel may be required to appear before the Court and be prepared to explain the inordinate delay in the preparation of Appellant’s brief.”  Appellant filed a third request for extension of time, and on November 17, 2016, the Court reluctantly granted in part the motion, extending the due date until 5:00 on Wednesday, November 23, 2016.  As of today, we have not received Appellant’s brief.  

By this order, Alvaro Martinez Jr. is **ORDERED** to file in this court a brief on behalf of Appellant on or before **5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 8, 2016**.  At that time, Appellant’s brief shall have already been e-filed or be present in the portal for the Eleventh Court of Appeals through eFileTexas.gov. 

								PER CURIAM

December 1, 2016

Do not publish.  *See* TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J. 

2

# oleObject1.bin

# image3.wmf

# oleObject2.bin

# image1.jpeg

# image2.wmf
#### COX v. FOOD LION

No. 299P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 437

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 July 1997.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 318

Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 9, 1997

Mr. GEPHARDT submitted the following resolution; which failed of adoption

RESOLUTION

Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas, the election contest concerning the 46th District of

California should be dismissed as there is no credible evidence to show that the outcome of the election is different than the election of Congresswoman Loretta

Sanchez;

Whereas, State of California authorities should continue an

investigation into any questionable registration activities;

and

Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should examine

voter registration procedures: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, that the contest in the 46th District of Cali2 fornia is dismissed.

Æ
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Bill Keeter","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/wkeeter\/","title":"Save the Date: Apophis 2029 Innovation (A29I) Listening Workshop","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hZUc5gzZ8e\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/organizations\/otps\/save-the-date-apophis-2029-innovation-listening-workshop\/\">Save the Date: Apophis 2029 Innovation (A29I) Listening Workshop<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/organizations\/otps\/save-the-date-apophis-2029-innovation-listening-workshop\/embed\/#?secret=hZUc5gzZ8e\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Save the Date: Apophis 2029 Innovation (A29I) Listening Workshop” — NASA\" data-secret=\"hZUc5gzZ8e\" 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\/2022\/05\/e_pia24168-apophis-radar.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":238}