alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9929.

#### Calhoun *v.*Dunson & Gay.

Decided January 15, 1919.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court—Judge Pendleton. May 38, 1918.

*Hewlett & Dennis,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. A. Etheridge,*contra.

Luke, J.

1. Ordinarily a broker employed to obtain a loan for a borrower does not fulfil his engagement by simply finding a person who is ready, able, and willing to make the loan on the terms on which the borrower has contracted to take it, but he must either tender the money or produce the person willing to make the loan on the terms agreed, unless the borrower, at the time the broker advises him that he has such a person ready, able, and willing to make the loan refuses to accept the loan.

(a) Such authority to the broker may be revoked by the borrower at any time prior to the finding of the lender who is willing, able, and ready to make the loan upon the terms of the agreement of the borrower. Such revocation, however, cannot be made after noticé to the borrower that he has procured the lender ready, able, and willing to make the loan upon the security and terms agreed.

2. The evidence upon the trial of this case was in some particulars com flicting, but there was ample evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial court. There is no error of law complained of which, in the light of the record as a whole, requires a reversal of the judgment overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 
 I, Ed C. Loughry, Jr., certify that:
 
 1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cavalry Bancorp, Inc.;
 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4) The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (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 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 disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 c) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5) The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors:
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b) 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.
 
 Date: August 5, 2004
by:Ed C. Loughry, Jr.Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued October 6, 2009

Decided July 20, 2010

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 08-1512

ANTONINA SURGANOVA,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney

General of the United States,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

No. A078-854-919

O R D E R

In a published opinion issued on today’s date, we have denied petitioner Antonina

Surganova’s petition to review the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals concluding

that she is removable because she procured an adjustment in her immigration status

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08-1512 Page 2

through marriage fraud. As we explain in more detail in that opinion, the possibility that

she had done so first came to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security’s

Immigration and Customs Enforcement section when her ex-son-in-law, Andrew Fleming,

contacted that office. 

Earlier, however, on November 18, 2003, Fleming had submitted a Form I-864 with

an affidavit to DHS as a co-sponsor for Surganova’s petition to change her immigration

status based on her marriage to a U.S. citizen. On that official form, he swore that

Surganova’s current address was with her husband. Seven months later, while he was

embroiled in an ugly divorce from Surganova’s daughter, Fleming told DHS that his earlier

statement had been untruthful. In fact, he said, Surganova had never resided with her

husband, and that fact caused him to believe that the marriage was a sham. Fleming

testified at Surganova’s hearing that he did not have any reason to question the validity of

the marriage at the time he filed the Form I-894, but he did not explain how he could have

thought that she was living with her husband when she was in fact living in Fleming’s own

apartment, with him, her daughter, and her granddaughter, and she was providing child

care for the granddaughter. 

Fleming is a licensed attorney in Illinois. We do not know if there is any way to

reconcile his first and second set of statements, but the information available to us

convinces us that the proper authorities need to investigate this further. We accordingly

direct the Clerk of this court to forward a copy of this order and our published opinion to

both the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois and the U.S.

Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, for whateverfurther action (if any) either one

deems appropriate. 

SO ORDERED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           20644
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   183889
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  307512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            30816
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      276696
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    307512
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4534
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  5180
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (646)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (646)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (646)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002**
I, Harold C. Bevis, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PliantCorporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 10, 2004     /s/ Harold C. Bevis   Harold C. Bevis Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.1

Annual Statement of
ComplianceProtective Life Secured Trust 2004-27 (the "Trust")

I, Millie
Cicero, a duly elected and acting officer of The Bank of New York ("Indenture Trustee"), do hereby certify on
behalf of the Indenture Trustee, that:

1.     I
have reviewed and examined the performance by the Indenture Trustee of the
collection and distribution of trust money pursuant to
Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the Indenture
pursuant to which the Trust's notes (the "Notes") were issued during the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2004 (the "Relevant
Year"); and

2.     Based
upon my review and examination described in 1 above, and except as provided in the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, dated March 30, 2005, prepared by the Trust's
independent registered public accounting firm in accordance with Section 10 of the Expense and Indemnity
Agreement, to the best of my knowledge, the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to noteholders
pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the
Indenture was performed in a satisfactory manner in all material respects
throughout the Relevant Year.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Indenture Trustee

|By: |  | /s/MILLIE CICERO
      Name:  Millie
      CiceroTitle:    Assistant Treasurer |  |  |  | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | 

Date:  March 30, 2005
9828.

#### Thomas *v.*Georgia Railway and Power Company.

Decided February. 12, 1919.

Action for damages; from Fulton superior court—Judge Ellis. April 29, 1918.

*C. D.*Maddox, *S. A.*Massell, for plaintiff.

*Colquitt &*Conyers, for defendant.

Stephens, J.

1. “The court sustained defendant’s . . demurrer, but allowed plaintiff twenty days in which to amend her petition and meet this demurrer. To this ruling no exception was taken, nor is error assigned thereon in the bill of exceptions. Therefore, the ruling that the petition was subject to this . . demurrer became the law of the case. The plaintiff, within the twenty days allowed, filed a purported amendment to her petition. This amendment, however, . . clearly failed to meet the objections raised by the demurrer. No further amendment was offered within the twenty days allowed in the court’s order. Under these facts the court did not err in dismissing the 'plaintiff’s ease.’’ *Baker*v. *City of Atlanta,*22 *Ga. App.*483 (96 S. E. 332).

2. The amendment to the plaintiff’s declaration having been allowed subject to demurrer, it was not error to entertain defendant’s motion, made after the call of the’ ease for trial but before plaintiff’s counsel finished reading his declaration to the jury, to dismiss plaintiff’s suit upon the ground that the amendment failed to comply with the terms of the original order sustaining defendant’s demurrer to the declaration. *Marbut*v. *Southern Railway Co.,*22 *Ga. App.*330 (95 S. E. 1021) ; *Neal*v. *Moultrie,*12 *Ga.*104 (4) ; *Hart*v. *Henderson,*66 *Ga.*568; *Cooney*v. *Sweat,*133 *Ga.*511 (2) (66 S: E. 257, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 758).

3. The original demurrer having been sustained, and the declaration dismissed, with leave to plaintiff to amend by “separating the petition into two counts, each setting up separate causes of action,” it was not a compliance with this order “to make paragraphs of one count a part of another count by mere reference to same,” and the court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s suit upon defendant’s motion. *Cooper*v. *Portner Brewing Co.,*112 *Ga.*894 (3) (38 S. E. 891) ; *Train*v. *Emerson,*137 *Ga.*730 (74 S. E..241).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
Exhibit 13.2

eLong, Inc.

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

In connection with the
Annual Report of eLong, Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chris Chan, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, 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 of the Company as of December 31, 2007 and results of operations of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007.



/s/ Chris ChanName:

Chris ChanTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

June 28, 2008
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3890

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 8, 2004

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation 

and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 3890 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS. 

2 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

3 9 of the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and 

4 Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 

5 5108) is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

7 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to the Sec8 retary to carry out this Act for fiscal year 2005, an 

9 amount equal to the amount appropriated for the same 

10 purposes for fiscal year 2004, and $20,000,000 for each 

11 of the fiscal years 2006 through 2009.’’. 

12 (b) STEEL PROJECT PRIORITIES.—Section 4(c)(1) of 

13 the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Tech14 nology Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 

15 5103(c)(1)) is amended—

16 (1) in subparagraph (H), by striking ‘‘coatings 

17 for sheet steels’’ and inserting ‘‘sheet and bar 

18 steels’’; and 

19 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub20 paragraph: 

21 ‘‘(K) The development of technologies 

22 which reduce greenhouse gas emissions.’’. 

23 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The Steel and 

24 Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competi25 tiveness Act of 1988 is further amended—

26 (1) by striking section 7 (15 U.S.C. 5106); and 
3

HR 3890 RFS 

1 (2) in section 4(b)—

2 (A) in the subsection heading, by inserting 

3 ‘‘AND REPORT’’ after ‘‘MANAGEMENT PLAN’’; 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘Within 6 months after the 

5 date of enactment of this Act’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘Not later than 6 months after the date of en7 actment of the Act enacting this sentence’’; 

8 (C) by striking ‘‘to expand the steel re9 search and development initiative to include 

10 aluminum and’’; and 

11 (D) by inserting ‘‘, and shall transmit such 

12 plan to Congress’’ after ‘‘carry out the purposes 

13 of this Act’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 7, 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.4



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 DDi Capital Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John K.
Stumpf, 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 to the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: November 14, 2003 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ JOHN K. STUMPF |  |                                       
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------ |  | --------------------------------------
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                    | 
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  | John K. Stumpf Chief Financial Officer
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Margaree Maple, Petitioner, 

v. 

Heritage Healthcare of Ridgeway, and Phoenix Insurance 

Company, Carrier, Respondents. 

Appellate Case No. 2012-212605 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal From The Workers' Compensation Commission 

Andrea C. Roche, Commissioner 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2014-MO-041 

Heard October 8, 2014 – Filed October 22, 2014 

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY 

GRANTED 

Preston F. McDaniel, of McDaniel Law Firm, of 

Columbia, for Petitioner. 

Richard Daniel Addison, of Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe 

& Garofalo, LLP, of Columbia, for Respondents. 
PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' opinion in 

Maple v. Heritage Healthcare of Ridgeway, Op. No. 2012-UP-302 (S.C. Ct. App. 

filed June 27, 2012). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 

 

DIVISION OF

CORPORATIONFINANCE

 

        Mail Stop 3561 

        Via facsimile and U.S. mail 

 

                                             July 18, 2005 

 

Barney A.Richmond, President 

MyZipSoft,Inc. 

100 VillageSquare Crossing, Suite 202 

Palm BeachGardens, Florida 33410 

Fax:561-207-6299

 

                RE: MyZipSoft, Inc. 

                    Registration Statement on Form 10-SB 

                    File Number: 000-50783 

                    Filed: July 8, 2005

 

Dear Mr.Richmond: 

 

  We have completed a preliminary reading of your registration statement.Disclosure indicates that on June 2, 2005, the registrant, a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of eCom eCom.com, Inc. ("eCom"), issued all of its share certificatesto the shareholders of record of eCom in a "spin-off" transaction. Refer todisclosure on page 9 of Form 10-SB filed on July 8, 2005. In a letter ofcorrespondence, please provide us with a substantive legal analysis describingyour basis for effecting this issuance without the registration of suchtransaction under the federal securities laws. In the interim, promptly withdrawthe Form 10-SB filed with us on July 8, 2005, You are advised that a Form 10-SBwill become effective, by operation of law, 60 days after filing. Should yourregistration statement become effective in its present form, we would berequired to consider what recommendation, if any, we should make to theCommission. You may contact Jay Ingram at (202)551-3397 with any questions.

 

 

                                    Sincerely, 

 

                                    /s/ for John Reynolds

 

                                    John Reynolds 

                                    Assistant Director 

                                    Office of Emerging Growth Companies