alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### W. H. H. Wright *v.*Arthur Banks' Ex'r.

Bilis and Notes — Assignment and Transfer are Synonymous Terms — Without Recourse — Presumption.

The note was not formally assigned by a written endorsement upon the back but the bond for title recites that it was transferred to appellant. The terms assignment and transfer, when applied to contracts of sale of promissory notes, are used synonymously by the *717general public and also, in some instances, by the courts. The failure to assign in 'writing raises the presumption that the sale was made without recourse.

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

June 28, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The testimony all conduces to show that the agreement between Banks and Howard was that in consideration of the payment of interest in advance, the note was not to be regarded as due until the 1st day of January, 1871. Although the recital in the bond for title held by Banks does not necessarily operate as an estoppel, it strongly corroborates the testimony of Howard as to the agreement at the time the interest on the note was paid. It follows, therefore, that appellant used legal diligence in attempting its collection.

Although it appears from the title bond filed by appellee that Wright accepted the note on Howard as part payment for the lot yet it also appears that the note was “transferred” to him. It is true it was not formally assigned by a written endorsement upon its back, but the bond for title which Banks introduces as evidence of what the contract was recites that it was “transferred” to appellants.

The terms assignment and transfer, when applied to contracts of sale of promissory notes, are used synonymously by the general public, and also in many instances the courts.

Nor is it material that the assignment was not in writing signed by the assignor. It is true that the failure to assign in writing raises the presumption that the sale was made without recourse, but this presumption is rebutted by the recitals of the title bond considered in connection with the circumstances attending the transaction.

The note was not delivered to Wright at the time of the sale of the lots. It was not due for nearly six months thereafter and when due it was worthless. We cannot conclude that appellant intended to risk the solvency of Howard, there being nothing in the record to show that he sold the lot for more than its real value.

*718
      *Apperson, for appellants.*

*Holt, for appellees.*

We are of opinion that Banks is responsible to appellant upon his contract of “transfer.” Wherefore, the cause is remanded for judgment in favor of the latter and for such other proceedings as may be proper.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I, Frederick F. Wolfe,certify that:

 

1.                                       I have reviewed this report onForm 10-K of Real Mex Restaurants, Inc.;

 

2.                                       Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.                                       Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.                                       The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

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

 

b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

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

 

5.                                       The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

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

 

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

 

Date: February21, 2006

 

 
| /s/ Frederick F. Wolfe  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Frederick F. Wolfe      |
|                    |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Pan Am Financial Corp (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ray Thousand certifies in his capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that to his knowledge: 

 

(a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 

 

(b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed this Certification asof November 18, 2004.
#### Polly Rawlings *v.*L. J. Bosleys, Admr.

Improvements Made by Father on Sons’ Property Subject to His Debts— Assignee in no Better Position.

If the sons permitted their father to make valuable improvements upon their real property, with funds he should have applied to the payment of his debts, they could not complain that their father’s creditors should be allowed to subject such improvements to the payment of their claims, and their assignee, with knowledge of the facts, is in no better position than the sons.

APPEAL FROM WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 19, 1871.

*259
      *Browne, for appellant.*

*Hays, for appellee.*

•OPINION by

Judge Lindsay:

The improvements made upon the lots adjudged to be the property of Mrs. Rawlings were made whilst her two sons held the title bond of her vendors, the McVeys.

At that time she held neither the legal nor equitable title to said lots. If the sons permitted their unobedient father to make valuable improvements upon their realty, with funds he should have applied to the payment of his debts, and from the record we must assume that they did so with full knowledge of how such improvements were being made, they could not complain that their father’s creditors should be allowed to subject such improvements to the payment of their claims. Mrs. Rawlings, who now holds the title as their assignee, took from them with notice of all the facts, and according to her own showing, without consideration as to the original value of the property. She is in no better position than the sons would have been if they had retained the title to the lots..

In so far as the improvements enhance the value of the property, appellee has a right to subject it to the payment of his judgment, and to that extent he holds a lien upon it.

Judgment affirmed. Judge Hardin did not sit in this case.
IV

House Calendar No. 129

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 306

[Report No. 105–384]

Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration

of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 5, 1997

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

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

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect

to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the

Committee on Rules, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule

2 XI for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported from that committee before November 10, 1997,

6 providing for consideration or disposition of any of the fol7 lowing:
2

HRES 306 RH

1 (1) A bill or joint resolution making general ap2 propriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,

3 1998, any amendment thereto, any conference report

4 thereon, or any amendment reported in disagree5 ment from a conference thereon.

6 (2) A bill or joint resolution that includes provi7 sions making continuing appropriations for fiscal

8 year 1998, any amendment thereto, any conference

9 report thereon, or any amendment reported in dis10 agreement from a conference thereon.

11 SEC. 2. It shall be in order at any time before Novem12 ber 10, 1997, for the Speaker to entertain motions to sus13 pend the rules, provided that the object of any such motion

14 is announced from the floor at least one hour before the

15 motion is offered. In scheduling the consideration of legis16 lation under this authority, the Speaker or his designee

17 shall consult with the minority leader or his designee.

House Calendar No. 129

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 306

[Report No. 105–384]

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI

for other purposes.tions reported from the Committee on Rules, andwith respect to consideration of certain resoluNOVEMBER 5, 1997

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"NASA, DARPA Partner with Industry on Mars Rocket Engine","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"miUWxvknEW\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/nasa-darpa-partner-with-industry-on-mars-rocket-engine\/\">NASA, DARPA Partner with Industry on Mars Rocket Engine<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/nasa-darpa-partner-with-industry-on-mars-rocket-engine\/embed\/#?secret=miUWxvknEW\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA, DARPA Partner with Industry on Mars Rocket Engine” — NASA\" data-secret=\"miUWxvknEW\" 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\/2023\/01\/draco-4-darpa-nasa-ussf-caption.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":336}
H. Res. 345

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 4, 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 joint resolution (H.J. Res. 107) expressing the sense of

the Congress that the award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and

sanctions of $285,864.78 ordered by United States District

Judge Royce C. Lamberth on December 18, 1997, should not

be paid with taxpayer funds. The first reading of the joint

resolution shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be

confined to the joint resolution and shall not exceed one hour

equally divided and controlled by Representative Hayworth of

Arizona or his designee and Representative Stark of California or his designee. After general debate the joint resolution

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. The joint resolution 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
2

•HRES 345 EH

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 joint resolution for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the joint resolution to the House

with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 254 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                  House Calendar No. 99
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 254

                          [Report No. 105-281]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 2203) making appropriations for energy and water development 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 1997

Ms. Pryce of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 2203) making appropriations for energy and water development 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2203) making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. All 
points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as 
read.
                                     





                                                  House Calendar No. 99

105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 254

                          [Report No. 105-281]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 2203) making appropriations for energy and water development 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 29, 1997

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
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

1 The Court denied Petitioner’s motion for a new trial in an Order filed July 26,

2006. (Dkt. 82.) In the document addressed to the Court, Petitioner indicates his

disagreement with the Court’s findings and objects to counsel’s characterization, in the

motion for a new trial, of his relationship to one of the trial witnesses. The Court notes that

its ruling on the claim of prosecutorial misconduct did not take into account counsel’s

statement that the witness Hill was Petitioner’s ex-girlfriend.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eric John King, ) No. CV 98-1277-PHX-RCB

)

Petitioner, )

v. ) ORDER

)

Dora Schriro, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

)

Petitioner has addressed a document to the Court dated August 2, 2006, with the

heading “Supplement, Attach on New Trial Motion.”1

 Petitioner is represented by counsel,

Daniel Maynard, and all matters submitted to the Court must be presented through counsel.

See Rule 83.3(c)(2), Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of

Arizona. Accordingly, Petitioner’s document is not properly before the Court, and it will not

be considered.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court forward a copy of this Order and a copy of

Petitioner’s document dated August 2, 2006, to Petitioner’s counsel, Daniel Maynard. 

Case 2:98-cv-01277-RCB Document 84 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court forward a copy of this Order

to Petitioner Eric King, ADOC # 46518, SMU II, PO Box 3400, Florence, AZ 85232, and

that Petitioner’s document dated August 2, 2006, be placed on the left side of the Court’s

case file, with no further action taken.

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2006.

Case 2:98-cv-01277-RCB Document 84 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 2
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 35

Expressing the condolences of the House on the death of the Honorable

Frank Tejeda.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1997

Mr. GONZALEZ submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Expressing the condolences of the House on the death of

the Honorable Frank Tejeda.

1 Resolved, That the House has heard with profound

2 sorrow of the death of the Honorable Frank Tejeda, a

3 Representative from the State of Texas.

4 Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolu5 tions to the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the

6 family of the deceased.

7 Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it ad8 journ as a further mark of respect to the memory of the

9 deceased.

Æ
Exhibit 32.2




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 Annual Report of Otelco Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curtis L. Garner, Jr., 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 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/ Curtis L. Garner, Jr.Curtis L. Garner, Jr.

Chief Financial Officer

March 4, 2011




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

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-22-00220-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1577405D

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

BRANDON CLAYTON YOCUM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Brandon Clayton Yocum attempts to appeal his conviction for 

murder. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(c). Yocum pleaded guilty to that offense 

pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, and the trial court sentenced him in accordance 

with that agreement to twenty-six years’ confinement. As part of his plea-bargain 

agreement, Yocum waived his right to appeal.

Consistent with Yocum’s plea-bargain agreement, the “Trial Court’s 

Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal” in this case states that this “is a pleabargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.2(a)(2), (d). On September 15, 2022, we notified Yocum of the certification and 

warned him that we would dismiss the appeal unless we received a response by 

September 26, 2022, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.2(a)(2), (d), 44.3. We received no response.

In accordance with the trial court’s certification, we dismiss Yocum’s appeal. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f); see, e.g., Ponciano v. State, No. 02-17-00394-CR, 2018 

WL 1414731, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 22, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: October 13, 2022