alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### E. F. Abbott, etc., *v.*City of Newport.

Appeals and Errors — Court of Appeals — Power Over Former Decisions.

The Court of Appeals has no power over its former decisions. Whether right or wrong that court as well as the circuit court is bound to recognize it as the law of the case.

February 21, 1872.

APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Pryor:

Although the mandate of the court did not in terms direct the. judge of the circuit court upon the return of the cause to dis*24miss the petition of the appellants, yet when the reasoning and conclusions of this court as set out in the opinion, are considered, the further proceedings directed to be had, mean nothing more than the entry upon the record of the mandate, and the dismissal of such petition.

*Hallam, for appellants.*

*Hawkins ¡Sr Boden, for appellee.*

The amended petition offered to be filed is in no sense a bill of' review. It presents no new fact arising or discovered since the first hearing of the cause. The object was to raise a question of law which might have been presented, and acted upon when the cause was first heard, or as appellants, express it, to present fully and clearly a legal question attempted to .be raised in the original pleadings.

It is not necessary that we should express an opinion upon this legal proposition. We have not the power to revise our former decision. Whether it be right or wrong-, this court as well as the circuit court, is 'bound to recognize it as tha law of this case.

Inasmuch as the circuit court had no discretion in the matter, but was bound1 to enter and obey the mandate of this court, it was not erroneous to refuse to transfer the cause to the chancery court.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT FOF 2002

In connection with Amendment No. 1 to our Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tower Group, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending
December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Michael H. Lee, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and William E. Hitselberger, Senior Vice President
and 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) and 15(d) of the Securities and 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |  |  |                                                  
|-------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|March 12, 2013 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael H. Lee                               
|               |  |  |  | Michael H. Lee                                   
|               |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer            
|               |  | 
|March 12, 2013 |  |  |  | /s/ William E. Hitselberger                      
|               |  |  |  | William E. Hitselberger                          
|               |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer



69
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 515

Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the

House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 3, 1998

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

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating majority membership on certain standing

committees of the House.

1 Resolved, That the following named Member be, and

2 she is hereby, elected to the following standing committee

3 of the House of Representatives:

4 COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE: Mrs. Heather Wilson.

Æ
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 100 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                  House Calendar No. 11
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 100

                          [Report No. 105-32]

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


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 19, 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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 1122) to amend title 18, 
          United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions.

    Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1122) to amend title 18, 
United States Code, to ban partial birth abortions. The bill shall be 
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
motion except: (1) 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
                                     





                                                  House Calendar No. 11

105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 100

                          [Report No. 105-32]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 19, 1997

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 531

Calling upon William Jefferson Clinton to immediately resign the Office

of President of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 11, 1998

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

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Calling upon William Jefferson Clinton to immediately resign

the Office of President of the United States.

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton has abused the Office of

President of the United States through the use of the

power of the Office to seduce an employee, and by using

the public facilities of the Office for said seduction;

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton’s misconduct, if engaged

in under similar circumstances by any other citizen,

would result in that citizen’s dismissal from employment;

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton has used the resources of

the Office of President of the United States, including

employees, appointees, and associates, to cover up his actions and to obstruct justice by withholding information

from a duly constituted Independent Counsel investigation;
2

•HRES 531 IH

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton has subverted the laws of

the United States by providing false testimony, by refusing to provide duly subpoenaed information, and by having 267 ‘‘lapses of memory’’ during the course of his

sworn testimony; and

Whereas as a result of these actions, William Jefferson Clinton has diminished the Office of President of the United

States by removing the dignity, honor, integrity, and

trust in the Office necessary for the effective conduct of

the affairs of the United States of America: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives hereby

2 calls upon William Jefferson Clinton to immediately resign

3 the Office of President of the United States.

Æ
Opinion issued November 21, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00916-CV

———————————

IN RE WALLER COUNTY, TEXAS, WALLER JUDGE GLENN 

BECKENDORFF, WALLER COUNTY COMMISSIONER FRANK 

POKLUDA, WALLER COUNTY COMMISSIONER STAN KITZMAN, 

WALLER COUNTY COMMISSIONER JERON BARNETT, AND 

WALLER COUNTY COMMISSIONER JOHN AMSLER, IN THEIR 

OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS THE WALLER COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS COURT, Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

*

 We dismiss all pending 

motions, including relators’ emergency motion for stay, as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Brown.

 * The underlying case is City of Hempstead, Texas and Citizens Against the Landfill 

in Hempstead v. Waller County, Texas, County Judge Glenn Beckendorff, 

Commissioner Frank Pokluda, Commissioner Stan Kitzman, Commissioner Jeron 

Barnett, Commissioner John Amsler, and Pintail Landfill, L.L.C., cause number 

13-03-21872, pending in the 506th District Court of Waller County, Texas, the 

Hon. Terrill L. Flenniken presiding.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 687 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 687

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny employers a 
           deduction for payments of excessive compensation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 1997

Mr. Sabo (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Olver, Ms. Norton, Mr. Hinchey, 
Mr. Sanders, Mr. Towns, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Vento, Ms. Velazquez, and Ms. 
  McKinney) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny employers a 
           deduction for payments of excessive compensation.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Income Equity Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR PAYMENTS OF EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to deduction for trade or business expenses) is amended by 
inserting after subsection (h) the following new subsection:
    ``(i) Excessive Compensation.--
            ``(1) In general.--No deduction shall be allowed under this 
        chapter for any excessive compensation with respect to any 
        full-time employee.
            ``(2) Excessive compensation.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the term `excessive compensation' means, with 
        respect to any employee, the amount by which--
                    ``(A) the compensation for services performed by 
                such employee during the taxable year, exceeds
                    ``(B) an amount equal to 25 times the lowest 
                compensation for services performed by any other full-
                time employee during such taxable year.
            ``(3) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this 
        subsection--
                    ``(A) Compensation.--
                            ``(i) In general.--The term `compensation' 
                        means salary, wages, and bonuses.
                            ``(ii) Part-year employees.--In the case of 
                        any part-year employee, the compensation of the 
                        employee shall be computed on an annualized 
                        basis.
                    ``(B) Employer.--All persons treated as a single 
                employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 or 
                subsection (m) or (o) of section 414 shall be treated 
                as 1 employer.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 340

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that any budgetary

surplus achieved by the end of fiscal year 2002 be saved for investment

in the Social Security Program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 1998

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

Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Ways

and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

any budgetary surplus achieved by the end of fiscal year

2002 be saved for investment in the Social Security

Program.

Whereas the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of the Social Security Act has drastically reduced the rate of poverty among seniors, and, if

such program did not exist, the rate of poverty among

seniors would be 54 percent rather than the current rate

of 12 percent;
2

•HRES 340 IH

Whereas the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and

Survivors Insurance Trust Fund estimates that the Trust

Fund will become insolvent by the year 2029;

Whereas the number of people over age 65 will double by the

year 2025;

Whereas the number of workers whose taxes will finance their

social security benefits is projected to grow by only 17

percent;

Whereas the ratio of workers to recipients is projected to fall

from 3.2 to 1 today to 2.0 to 1 in the year 2030; and

Whereas the House of Representatives has a responsibility to

address the solvency issues facing the old-age, survivors,

and disability insurance program under title II of the Social Security Act: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that any budget surplus that is achieved be3 tween now and the end of fiscal year 2002 should not be

4 spent, but rather it should be saved for investment in the

5 old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program under

6 title II of the Social Security Act.

Æ
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 519

Concerning Iraqi development of weapons of mass destruction.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 6, 1998

Mr. PAPPAS (for himself, Mr. MCINTOSH, and Mr. GRAHAM) submitted the

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Concerning Iraqi development of weapons of mass

destruction.

Whereas the development of weapons of mass destruction by

rogue states is one of the greatest threats to world peace

and stability;

Whereas Iraq has attacked 4 sovereign nations in blatant violation of international law;

Whereas Iraq has developed and used chemical weapons and

ballistic missiles;

Whereas the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions against Iraq and authorized teams of international

inspectors to supervise the destruction of Iraqi weapons

and the dismantling of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction

programs;
2

•HRES 519 IH

Whereas 7 years after Iraq agreed to Security Council demands to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, these

inspectors continue to suspect Iraq still is hiding its nuclear weapons capabilities;

Whereas the government of Iraq has repeatedly tried to

hinder the work of these inspection teams and is refusing

to provide information about key aspects of its nuclear

program;

Whereas the Security Council has extended the sanctions regimes based on evidence of Iraqi noncompliance collected

by these inspectors;

Whereas without these inspections, there is little doubt that

Iraq would continue these weapons programs unabated;

Whereas the Security Council will meet in October to consider reauthorizing all United Nations inspections in

Iraq;

Whereas several nations, including France, Russia, and

China, are eager to end the sanctions on Iraq; and

Whereas proposals to relax the current international inspections regime would allow Iraq to move forward on these

weapon programs, posing devastating consequences for

international security: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. It is the sense of the House of Represent3 atives that—

4 (1) the international agencies charged with in5 spections in Iraq—the International Atomic Energy

6 Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Special

7 Commission (UNSCOM)—must continue to main-
3

•HRES 519 IH

1 tain complete inspections, including surprise inspec2 tions, within Iraq; and

3 (2) the United States Representative to the

4 United Nations should vehemently oppose any ef5 forts to weaken the inspections regimes on Iraq as

6 long as there is evidence that the government of Iraq

7 is seeking to develop or acquire weapons of mass de8 struction and the means of delivering them.

9 SEC. 2. The Clerk of the House of Representatives

10 is directed to provide a copy of this resolution to rep11 resentatives of all countries that are members of the

12 United Nations Security Council.

Æ
#### Jorge MARTINEZ-ISLAS; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-72979.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXXXXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 15, 2004.

Jorge Martinez-Islas, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Maria M. Escobedo-Jaimes, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Juanita Patricia Martinez-Escobedo, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, ALARCÓN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Jorge Martinez-Islas, his spouse Maria Escobedo-Jaimes, and their daughter Juanita Martinez-Escobedo, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen or reconsider. We review for abuse of discretion. *Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition.

In their motion to reopen or reconsider, petitioners requested that the BIA consider the availability of repapering relief. *See Alcaraz v. INS,*384 F.3d 1150, 1152-53 (9th Cir.2004) (describing the “safety-net provision for aliens rendered ineligible for suspension of deportation because of the retroactive stop-time rule” referred to as “repapering” relief). However, repapering relief is only available to aliens who are statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal. *See id.*at 1155; *see also*65 Fed. Reg. 71273, 71274 (Nov. 30, 2000) (“Repapering applicants must also be statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal ... at the time of application.”). Here, the BIA correctly found that petitioners were ineligible for cancellation of removal because they overstayed their voluntary departure period. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d). Accordingly, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny petitioners’ motion because they were not eligible for repapering relief.

We do not have jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions regarding alleged error in the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) finding that they lacked requisite continuous physical presence for suspension of deportation because petitioners did not appeal the BIA’s summary affirmance of the IJ’s decision. *See Martinez*—Serrano *v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### W. J. Gillispie *v.*B. C. Stagner, etc.

Evidence — Records in Other Suits — Failure to Copy in Bill of Exceptions.

None of the papers are copied into the bill of exceptions or made part of this record. The clerk in a note suggests that there is a copy of the record of -the case of Stagner v. Gillispie on file in the court of appeals but there is no agreement that the same may be considered on this appeal as part of the record.

APPEAL FROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT.

September 13, 1871.

*661
      *Bradley, for appellant.*

*McKee, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

It appears from the bill of exceptions that *upon*the trial of this action the appellant introduced and read to the court the record with all the orders and steps taken therein, the case of *B. C. Stager v. W. J. Gillispie and John Arnold*and that the plaintiff then introduced and read to the court a *d. fa.*in said case for the sum of thirty dollars, etc. Also, the sheriff’s indorsement thereon.

None of the papers are copied into the bill of exceptions or in any other legal manner made part of this record. True, the clerk in a note suggests that there is a copy of the record of the case of *Stagner v. Gillispie, etc.,*on file in this court, but there is no agreement that the same may be considered on this appeal as part of this record.

Not having before us all the evidence heard by the circuit judge, we cannot adjudge that his decision was erroneous.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 12

            GE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

              Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                        Six Months Ended June 26, 1999

                                 (Unaudited)




                                                                 Ratio of
                                                               Earnings to
 (Dollar amounts in millions)                                 Fixed Charges
                                                             ---------------


 Earnings before minority interest and cumulative effect
   of accounting change                                      $       271
 Provision for income taxes                                          161
                                                             ---------------

 Earnings before income taxes, minority interest
   and cumulative effect of accounting change                        432
                                                             ---------------

 Fixed charges:
   Interest                                                           46
   One-third of rentals                                                8
                                                             ---------------

 Total fixed charges                                                  54
                                                             ---------------



 Less interest capitalized, net of amortization                      ---
                                                             ---------------


 Earnings  before  income  taxes and  cumulative  effect of
   accounting change, plus fixed charges                          $  486
                                                             ===============



 Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                  9.0
                                                             ===============


For purposes of computing the ratios, fixed charges consist of interest on all
indebtedness and one-third of rentals, which management believes is a reasonable
approximation of the interest factor of such rentals.


                                       10