alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### I. C. Vanmeter *v.*Rodes Woods.

Improvements — Made on Real Property by Another Than the Owner of the Soil — Rights and Liabilities — Acquiescence.

The appellee contributed every dollar necessary to construct the storehouse in controversy, which was built on the lands of the appellant and with his full knowledge and consent, although there was no contract between them. The appellee occupied the house for some months previous to the institution of the suit, with the acquiescence of appellant. Whilst the building was being constructed, the appellant talked with appellee about it, and spoke of the manner in which the foundation was to have been built.

Held, that a court of equity, under such circumstances, would not give to the owner of the land this expenditure of the appellee’s money without some compensation, and that appellee’s equitable right to recover the value of the house, less the rent, is clearly established.

APPEAL FROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT.

January 10, 1872.

*317
      *J. R. Morton, for appellant.*

*Porter, Wallace, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The appellee, Woods, as appears from the evidence in the case, contributed out of his own means every dollar necessary to the construction of the store house in controversy. The house was built on the land of the appellant with his full knowledge and consent, and although there is no proof of any contract between the appellant and the appellee, it is hardly to be presumed that the appellee without right, and in the absence of any contract would construct such a building upon appellants lands without some understanding in regard to his right to use and occupy it. The appellee not only built the house out of his own means, but used and occupied it for some months previous to the institution of this suit, with the acquiescence at least of the appellant. Whilst the building was being constructed the appellant talked with appellee in regard to it, and spoke of the manner in which the foundation was to have been built. At court of equity under such circumstances, would not give to the owner of the land, this expenditure of the appellees money, without some compensation, it may be and in fact, the proof shows, that an old gentleman by the name of Offut claimed to have obtained the right to build on this lot from the appellant. This, however, is not brought home to the appellee and if it was, there is no proof that the'appellee entered under Offut or by reason of any agreement made between Offut and the appellant, waiving all the exceptions made by appellee to the depositions read, and looking to the whole evidence as taken, the appellee’s equitable right to recover the value of the house, less the rent, is clearly established.

The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.
Case 2:15-mj-01910-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01910-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01910-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/10/15 Page 3 of 3
9689.

#### DeLoach *v.*The State.

Decided October 14, 1918.

Accusation of unlawful possession of liquor; from city court of Nashville—Judge Christian. April 8, 1918. .

*R. A. Hendricks, W. D. Buie,*for plaintiff in error.

*H'. L. Jackson, solicitor,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

The grounds of the motion for a new trial are without merit; there is evidence to support the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion. .

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.*
Subject: EXT :FW: AT&T Feedback on CSF 2.0 

Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 1:52:50 PM 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening 

attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 

FYI 

Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 11:07 AM 

Subject: AT&T Feedback on CSF 2.0 

Below is initial feedback on the CSF 2.0 Draft document. It is primarily from our Chief Security 

Organization. 

Our observations: 

NIST CSF is a Framework and not a Standard; therefore, ultimately whatever is proposed in 

NIST is not directly going to impact AT&T (ASPR) unless we choose to align with it, OR are 

required to align via a contract (which prevails over ASPR) 

References to "Critical Infrastructure" - clear applicability at AT&T; however, defining a CI 

inventory may prove challenging as this is not reflected in current (known) tCMDBs 

While it is broadening in scope, it is taking into account variable applicability based on the 

organization type, size and relevance/scope 

Connections/alignments to other NIST frameworks and standards are being adopted while 

staying technology agnostic...this is good. 

Governance, risk management and metrics for measuring cybersecurity - another good add 

which may be leveraged at AT&T 

Examples of adoption - this is also a good add 

Rich Mosley 

Director, Security & Technology Policy 

AT&T Global Public Policy
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65693-65694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26335]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Notice of Revocation of Customs Broker's License

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Customs broker's license revocation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the revocation of one (1) 
customs broker's license.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides that, pursuant to 
section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641), and 
section 111.45(a) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 
CFR 111.45(a)), the following customs broker's license and all 
associated permits are revoked by operation of law.

[[Page 65694]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Company name              License No.      Port of issuance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Roads Logistics LLC..........           28729  Great Falls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: October 31, 2014.
Sandra L. Bell,
Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.
[FR Doc. 2014-26335 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



              In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of B&G Foods,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the  period  ending  July 3, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David
L.  Wenner,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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/ David L. Wenner
-----------------------
David L. Wenner
Chief Executive Officer
July 22, 2004
#### *A.*D. Whitson v. Ralph Bright.

Injunctions — Proceeding to Enjoin Judgment — Fraud and Mistake — Facts Must Be Discovered After Rendition of Judgment.

In a proceeding to enjoin the collection of a judgment upon the grounds of fraud in obtaining it, or mistake of fact by the defendant, it must be shown that such fraud or mistake was discovered subsequent to the rendition of the judgment, and when a party fails to make a defense in a suit at law, in the absence of fraud ón the part of the plaintiff in obtaining the judgment, it will not be set aside.

APPEAL PROM GALLATIN' CIRCUIT COURT.

December 11, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The charge of a fraudulent combination between Bright and Casey is utterly unsustained.

The evidence certainly preponderates in favor of the conclusion that Whithon was present when the note was executed, and that he signed it with full knowledge of all the facts attending its execution.

From the testimony of Casey who was a competent witness, we may fairly presume that all parties were mistaken as to his rights to bind his late partner Roberts by signing his name to the new note whether this mutual mistake could have been made available by Whitson as a defense to the suit on the note it is not important to determine. He does not allege in his petition that he discovered it since the judgment in that suit was rendered, nor that he discovered since then the fact that Casey *342did not have actual authority from Roberts to sign his name to the note. These defences not having arisen since the judgment on the note are not grounds upon which such judgment can be annulled or modified by this proceeding in equity. Neither of them having been discovered subsequent to its rendition. Civil Code, section 14, for the same reason the allegation that the note embraced usury was properly disregarded. This fact was certainly known to Whitson before the judgment sought to be injoined was rendered. M. S. S. opinion, June, 1859, *Chinn v. Mitchell.*Casey was a competent witness. He is not a party to the record, and his testimony in this cause cannot be used in his favor in any litigation between Roberts and himself for a settlement of these accounts. His interest as between Bright and Whitson is exactly equepoised. The authorities relied on by appellant are not applicable to this case for the reason that he failed to make defense to the suit at law, and in the absence of fraud upon the part of Bright his other grounds of complaint cannot now be considered. We do not deem it necessary to review the testimony touching the genuineness of Whitson signature to the note. Casey is uncontradicted and is not impeached. His testimony upon this point is conclusive.

Judgment *affirmed.*Chief Justice Prior did not sit in this case.
EXHIBIT
32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADDED BY

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Annual Report of OptimumBank Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, as the Principal Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 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. | To
    my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



| | /s/
    Timothy Terry          
| | -------------------------------
| | Timothy
    Terry              
| | Principal
    Executive Officer
| | Date:
    April 30, 2019
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 204 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 204

  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a postage 
           stamp should be issued in honor of Samantha Smith.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 1997

Mr. Baldacci submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a postage 
           stamp should be issued in honor of Samantha Smith.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) a postage stamp should be issued in honor of Samantha 
        Smith; and
            (2) the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee should recommend 
        to the Postmaster General that such a stamp be issued.
                                 <all>
```
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

December 2, 2021
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00490

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.C.H., A MINOR CHILD

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Caus e No. 2021

- 47951

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed August 27, 2021. On November 3, 2021, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.
We dismiss the appeal

. PER CURIAM
Panel c o nsists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Poissant.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #14178 and #14179]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Missouri (FEMA-4200-DR), dated 10/31/2014. *Incident:*
                         Severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         09/09/2014 through 09/10/2014. *Effective Date:*
                         10/31/2014. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         12/30/2014. *Economic Injury (EIDl) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         07/31/2015.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/31/2014, private non-profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Adair, Andrew, Atchison, Daviess, Gentry, Grundy, Harrison, Holt, Knox, Lewis, Linn, Livingston, Macon, Mercer, Nodaway, Putnam, Ralls, Shelby, Sullivan, Worth. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14178B and for economic injury is 14179B. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Cynthia G. Pitts, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2014-26684 Filed 11-10-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0324

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

RICHARD JAMES HAACKE,

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 December 20, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 13 2023

11/13/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0324
This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.HB.130-2022

Uniform Laws and Regulations 

in the Areas of Legal Metrology 

and Fuel Quality

as adopted by the 106th National Conference on Weights and Measures 2021

Editors:

Shelby Bowers

David Sefcik

Lisa Warfield

Dr. Katrice Lippa, Chief

Office of Weights and Measures

Physical Measurement Laboratory

This publication is available free of charge from:

https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.HB.130-2022

November 2021

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Gina M. Raimondo, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

James K. Olthoff, Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce 

for Standards and Technology & Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NIST Handbook130

2022 Edition

Supersedes all previous editions
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2955

___________

Eric C. Burgie, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Jim R. Hannah, Chief Justice, *

Arkansas Supreme Court; Donald * [UNPUBLISHED]

L. Corbin, Senior Associate Justice, *

Arkansas Supreme Court; Annabelle *

Clinton Imber, Associate Justice, *

Arkansas Supreme Court; Paul E. *

Danielson, Associate Justice, Arkansas *

Supreme Court; Jim Gunter, Associate *

Justice, Arkansas Supreme Court; *

Robert L. Brown, Associate Justice, *

Arkansas Supreme Court; Elana Willis, *

Associate Justice, Arkansas Supreme *

Court; Sue Newbery, Clerk, Arkansas *

Supreme Court, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 24, 2011

Filed: January 28, 2011

___________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Eric Burgie appeals following the district court’s1

 grant of summary judgment

in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against state-court judges and a clerk. 

Having reviewed the record de novo, see Bandy-Bey v. Crist, 578 F.3d 763, 765

(8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (standard of review), we conclude that the district court

properly dismissed the defendant judges based on absolute judicial immunity, and that

the court also properly granted summary judgment to the remaining defendant because

there was no evidence from which a jury could find in favor of Burgie on his

constitutional claims. Specifically, there is no evidence that Burgie was denied access

to the courts to present a nonfrivolous legal claim, that he was treated dissimilarly to

similarly situated persons, or that he was denied due process. We also find no abuse

of discretion in the denial of leave to amend or in the denial of the motions for recusal

and for a more definite statement. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 262 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 House Calendar No. 106
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 262

                          [Report No. 105-312]

 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill 
(H.R. 1122) to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth 
                               abortions.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 7, 1997

   Mrs. Myrick, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill 
(H.R. 1122) to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth 
                               abortions.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1122) to amend 
title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions, with 
Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the House a single motion 
that the House concur in each of the Senate amendments. The Senate 
amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall 
be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to 
final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
question.
                                     





                                                 House Calendar No. 106

105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 262

                          [Report No. 105-312]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill 
(H.R. 1122) to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth 
                               abortions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 7, 1997

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
EXHIBIT 32.42

 

 

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven B. Hildebrand, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

/s/ Steven B. Hildebrand

Steven B. Hildebrand

Chief Financial Officer

May 7, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and will be retained by Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.