alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Milton Yarnall *v.*D. M. White, &c.

Appeal and Error — Estoppel.

The errors, if any exist, in the judgment in favor of the appellant against White, which is not appealed from, do not result from anything in the pleadings or preparation of the case, which could operate to estop the appellant from seeking a reversal of the judgment, so far as it directs the payment of the claim of Wiggleworth against the appellant.

Vendor and Purchaser — Title Bond — Payment—Warranty Deed.

The vendor must present a good and sufficient deed in compliance with his title bond before he can enforce the payment of the purchase money.

APPEAL FROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 22, 1871.

Opinion of the Court by

Judgui Hardin :

The érrors, if any exist, in the judgment in favor of the appellant against White, which is not appealed from, do not result *292from anything in the pleadings or preparation of the case, which conld operate to estop the appellant from seeking in this court a reversal of the judgment, so far as it directs the payment of the claim of Wigglesworth against the appellant, out of the amount adjudged against White. The appellant resisted payment of the note for $800, because of alleged inability of C. Yarnall to convey the title in compliance with his bond, and his express stipulation that no part of the last payment fo'r which that note was given, should be made, until a warranty deed should be made in compliance with C. Yarnall’s bonds, which was not done, nor facts disclosed showing that it was in the power of the court to cause it to be done. The answer of appellant further set up in the guarnishee suit of , Hodges as creating a lien, or *Us pendens*as to $120 of the $500 debt in appellants hands before the assignment of the note to Wigglesworth. The assignment is not dated, and Wigglesworth has failed to allege or prove the date which would have shown whether or not the assignment and transfer of the note preceded the service or proof in the suit of Hodges; but he relied mainly on the alleged ground that he accepted the assignment of the note without knowledge of the pendency of the suit of Hodges, which does not appear to have been disposed of and may terminate in a judgment against the appellant.

*Trimble, for appellant.*

*Oleary &*West, *for appellee.*

We are of the opinion that for both the reasons indicated, the court erred in adjudging, on the case as presented, that the claim of Wigglesworth should be paid; but on the return of the cause further preparation will be allowed.

Wherefore the judgment in favor of Wigglesworth, is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
2023 Expert and Consultant Daily Wages 

Based on the OPM Salary Table 2023-GS 

Effective January 1, 2023

The following is a table of compensation rates for Experts and Consultants identifying per diem rates based on the first and the tenth 

step of GS-13, GS-14, and GS-15. As in the past, we suggest the use of a rate that equates to the first step of the appropriate grade. 

With supporting documentation, a higher rate may be justified to match the private sector salary of the appointee.

Per Diem Salary Scale

Daily 

Minimum

Daily 

Maximum

GS-13 range $84,546 - $109,908 $324.08 $421.28

GS-14 range $99,908 - $129,878 $382.96 $497.84

GS-15 range $117,518 - $152,771 $450.48 $585.60

NOTE: The process of increasing the pay of an Expert or Consultant is not automatic and requires the submission of a Request for 

Personnel Action, SF-52.
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF W&T OFFSHORE, INC.

The subsidiaries of W&T Offshore, Inc. are listed below.



|                                          |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  |              |  
|----------------------------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | ------------ | -
|Name                                      |  |  |  |  |  | State ofOrganization |  | PercentOwned |  
|Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Properties LLC |  |  |  |  |  | Delaware             |  | 100.0        | %
|                                          |  |  |  | 
|N.O. Properties LLC                       |  |  |  |  |  | Delaware             |  | 100.0        | %
|                                          |  |  |  | 
|Offshore Energy I LLC                     |  |  |  |  |  | Delaware             |  | 100.0        | %
|                                          |  |  |  | 
|Offshore Energy II LLC                    |  |  |  |  |  | Delaware             |  | 100.0        | %
|                                          |  |  |  | 
|Offshore Energy III LLC                   |  |  |  |  |  | Delaware             |  | 100.0        | %
|                                          |  |  |  | 
|Offshore Shelf LLC                        |  |  |  |  |  | Delaware             |  | 100.0        | %
|                                          |  |  |  | 
|W&T Energy VI, LLC                        |  |  |  |  |  | Delaware             |  | 100.0        | %
|                                          |  |  |  | 
|W&T Energy VII, LLC                       |  |  |  |  |  | Delaware             |  | 100.0        | %
|                                          |  |  |  | 
|W&T Holdings, L.L.C.*                     |  |  |  |  |  | Louisiana            |  | 100.0        | %
|                                          |  |  |  | 
|White Shoal Pipeline Corporation          |  |  |  |  |  | Delaware             |  | 64.5         | %

---

|* | W&T Offshore, Inc. has commenced the process of dissolving this subsidiary.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         385,786
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,450
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               429,065
<PP&E>                                         381,088
<DEPRECIATION>                                  60,176
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 798,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          162,472
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,379
<OTHER-SE>                                     584,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   798,644
<SALES>                                      1,091,816
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,091,816
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,246,225
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,169,629)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,169,629)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,169,629)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)


</TABLE>
##### 



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
  (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 represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the periods covered in the Report.
  /s/ Carlos E. AgüeroCarlos E. AgüeroChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 368 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     February 26, 1998.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2460) to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to scanning 
receivers and similar devices. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply 
with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After 
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. Each 
section of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
considered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of 
rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without 
intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on 
the first in any series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion 
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member 
may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2. After passage of H.R. 2460, it shall be in order to consider in the 
House S. 493. It shall be in order to move that the House strike all after the 
enacting clause of the Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof the provisions of 
H.R. 2460 as passed by the House.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Thos. W. Shackleford *v.*Henry M. Austin.

Pleadings — Misjoinder—Objection Must Be Made in Lower Court.

If there is a misjoinder of parties in the petition, the objection must he made in the Circuit Court.

APPEAL FROM McLEAN CIRCUIT COURT.

April 21, 1871.

■Opinion by

Judge Peters:

Even if there was a misjoinder of the causes of action in the petition, no objection was taken to it in the court below, and we must regard the objection as waived.

If appellant fed and took care of appellee’s hogs after he discontinued his distillery, although his contract was to keep them *319on still slop, nevertheless for his care, and food fed to the hogs he was entitled, under the *second*paragraph of his petition to such compensation as the jury might from the evidence believe he deserved to have, unless they should believe that his failure to feed them slop was of greater damage to them, than the value of the food and care bestowed on them was worth.

*Johnson, for appellant.*

*Tanner, for appellee.*

The first instruction asked by appellant was to that effect, and the- court overruled, which was erroneous. Wherefore, for that error alone the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 244 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                       October 1 (legislative day, September 30), 1997.
Whereas the contested election case of Dornan v. Sanchez is pending before the 
        Committee;
Whereas the Federal Contested Elections Act (2 U.S.C. 381 et seq.) (hereafter in 
        this resolution referred to as the ``Act'') provides for the issuance of 
        subpoenas, and on March 17, 1997, United States District Court Judge 
        Gary L. Taylor issued such a subpoena at the request of the Contestant 
        for the deposition and records of Hermandad Mexicana Nacional;
Whereas on April 16, 1997, the Committee voted to modify the subpoena by 
        limiting production of documents to the 46th Congressional District 
        (among other modifications), and as perfected by the Committee, the 
        subpoena required Hermandad Mexicana Nacional to produce documents and 
        appear for a deposition no later than May 1, 1997;
Whereas Hermandad Mexicana Nacional failed to produce documents or appear for 
        the deposition by May 1, 1997, and still has not complied with the 
        subpoena;
Whereas Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, by willfully failing to comply with the 
        lawfully issued subpoena, is in violation of section 11 of the Act (2 
        U.S.C. 390), which provides for criminal penalties;
Whereas on May 13, 1997, the Contestant wrote to the United States Attorney for 
        the Central District of California, Nora M. Manella, requesting that 
        action be taken to enforce the law with respect to Hermandad Mexicana 
        Nacional, and on June 23, 1997, the Committee wrote to the Department of 
        Justice inquiring as to the status of this request for criminal 
        prosecution, and the Department responded on July 25, 1997, that the 
        criminal referral remained ``under review'';
Whereas the United States Attorney's failure to enforce criminal penalties for 
        the violation of the Act encourages disrespect for the law and hinders 
        the constitutionally mandated process of determining the facts in the 
        contested election case, including the discovery of any election fraud 
        that may have influenced the outcome of the election; and
Whereas on September 23, 1997, the United States District Court for the Central 
        District of California ruled that the deposition subpoena provisions of 
        the Act are constitutional: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives demands that the Office of the 
United States Attorney for the Central District of California carry out its 
responsibility by filing, pursuant to its determination that it is appropriate 
according to the law and the facts, criminal charges against Hermandad Mexicana 
Nacional for failure to comply with a valid subpoena issued under the Act.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

*CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Granite City Food & Brewery Ltd. (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2005, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Daniel H. Bauer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2.                                       the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Dated: November 14,  2005 | By:    | /s/ Daniel H. Bauer     |   |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                      |   | Daniel H. Bauer         |
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP, a Florida )

limited liability partnership, and )

JERROLD S. PARKER, )

)

Appellants, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-4475

)

JORDAN L. CHAIKIN, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed June 14, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; James R. Shenko, Judge.

Hala Sandridge and Chance Lyman of 

Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Tampa, 

for Appellants.

Traci T. McKee and Kyle C. Dudek of 

Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., 

of Fort Myers, for Appellee.

Jordan L. Chaikin, pro se

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
* Judge Williams did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6656

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JASPER SIMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CR-02-936; CA-03-3280-5-23) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, * and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jasper Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Brereton Barbier, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jasper Simpson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Simpson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Simpson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosures controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an Annual Report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Eric W. FinlaysonEric W. Finlayson
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

.v.

ELIJAH TURNER

/prLED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT II I '

NoRTHERN DISTRICT or rllmots 'lutt' I 0 ?020

EASTERN DIVISION

',EH'*?U.8.%B'EEHEB0h, NO SOCR 290

Violation: Title 18, United States

code, section e22(d!) JUDGE DURKIN

ilagistrate Judge Jantz

The SPECIAL JANUARY 2019 GRAND JURY charges:

On or about Aprit 76, 2020, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Il1inois,

Eastern Division,

ET,IJAH TURNER,

defendant herein, knowing that he hqd previously been convicted of a crime

punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, did knowingly possess, in

and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, a fi.rearm, namely, a loaded Taurus

model PT 2417 PRO DS .45-caliber pistol bearing serial number NDM27975, which

firearm had traveled in interstate and foreign commerce prior to defendant's

possession of the firearm;

In violation of Title 18, United States Cod.e, Section g22(g)(L).

Case: 1:20-cr-00290 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/10/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION

The SPECIAT JANUARY 2019 GRAND JURY further alleses:

1. Upon conviction of an offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Section 922(S), as set forth in this Indictment, defendant shall forfeit to the United

States of America any firearm and ammunition involved in and used in the offense,

as provided in Titte 18, United States Code, Section 924(d)(1) and Title 28, United.

States Code, Section 2467(c).

2. The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, a Taurus

model PT 2A7 PRO DS .45-caliber pistol bearing serial number NDM27975, and

associated ammunition.

A TRUE BILL:

FOREPERSON

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Case: 1:20-cr-00290 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/10/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2