alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9941.

#### BUFORD *v.*SOUTHERN COTTON OIL COMPANY.

Decided May 16, 1919.

The second grant of a new trial by the trial judge in this ease was not warranted.

Complaint; from city court'of Savannah—Judge Freeman. June 17, 1918.

*Oliver & Oliver,*for plaintiff. *George W. Owens,*for defendant.

Luke, J.

This is a second grant of a new trial, the order of the court being as follows: “There have been three trials of this case. On each trial the evidence was substantially identical. Upon consideration of the record on the first motion for new trial, it seemed to me that there was no ease made authorizing a recovery, and therefore the motion was granted. Being still of this opinion when the second trial was had, I directed a verdict for the defendant. Exceptions to the direction of the verdict were sustained by the Court of Appeals, and the case remanded. *Buford*v. *Southern Cotton Oil Co.,*20 *Ga. App.*581 (2) (93 S. E. 318). The charges of the court on the first and third trials were practically identical. It does not yet'seem to me that on this record plaintiff is entitled to recover, and I am constrained to grant a new trial on all of the grounds thereof, and it is so ordered.”

No error of law appears, and it being clear that the trial judge granted the second new trial on the idea that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover on the evidence submitted, which the above-quoted order shows was substantially the same as that introduced on- a previous trial, and which this court on review held to be sufficient to warrant a submission of the case to a jury *(Buford*v. *Southern Cotton Oil Co.,*supra), and this being the law of the case, we are constrained to hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in granting a second new trial; the settled rule of the Supreme Court and of this court being that the grant of a second new trial will be closely examined to see that the court’s discretion was cautiously, justly, and wisely exercised. *Vassie*v. *Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 135 Ga,*8 (68 S. E. 782); *Morgan*v. *Lamb,*16 *Ga. App.*484 (85 S.. E. 792), and numerous cases there cited.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
H. Res. 509

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 24, 1998.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.

4250) to provide new patient protections under group health

plans. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.

The amendments printed in the report of the Committee on

Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by Representative Hastert of Illinois and

a Member opposed to the bill; (2) the further amendment

printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 2 pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII, which shall be in order without

intervention of any point of order or demand for division of

the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled
2

•HRES 509 EH

by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 69884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27655]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and 
Education (virtual) (#9487).
    Dates: January 20, 2015; 2:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: Stafford I, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Linda Deegan, National Science Foundation, Suite 
655, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230. Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b272f2e2e2c2a250b25382d652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9df1f9f8f8fafcf3ddf3eefbb3faf2eb">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations, and 
oversight concerning support for environmental research and 
education.
    Agenda: Discuss development of the Decadal Vision for 
Environmental Research and Education document.

    Dated: November 18, 2014.
Suzanne Plimpton,
Acting Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-27655 Filed 11-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Efren Sanchez Yepez

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04021

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

ProRack National Services, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, September 17, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Pursuant to notice of

voluntary dismissal, this action is dismissed without prejudice. Civil case terminated.

Mailed notice. (ecw, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 430 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          May 14, 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. 2431) to establish an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring, to 
provide for the imposition of sanctions against countries engaged in a pattern 
of religious persecution, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
shall be dispensed with. 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 International Relations. After general 
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In 
lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on International Relations, 
the Judiciary, and Ways and Means now printed in the bill, it shall be in order 
to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of 
H.R. 3806, modified by the amendments printed in part 1 of the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of 
a substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to that amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part 2 of the 
report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the 
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
points of order against the amendments printed in the report are waived. 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 amendment in the nature of a 
substitute made in order as original text. 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.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 541 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 House Calendar No. 249
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 541

                          [Report No. 105-724]

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 128) 
  making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1999, and for 
                            other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 16, 1998

    Mr. Dreier, 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 joint resolution (H.J. Res. 128) 
  making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1999, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 128) making continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 1999, and for other purposes. The 
joint resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
resolution to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one 
motion to recommit.
                                     





                                                 House Calendar No. 249

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 541

                          [Report No. 105-724]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 128) 
  making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1999, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 16, 1998

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
#### THE STATE ex rel. WENNEKER, Collector, Appellant, v. BEIMFOHR.

Division One,

May 25, 1904.

NO BILL OF EXCEPTIONS: Affirmance. There being no bill of exceptions and no errors apparent in the record proper, the judgment of nonsuit will be affirmed.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — How. *Warwick Hough,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*E. G. Slevin*for appellant.

H. *A. Loevy*for respondent.

VALLIANT, J.

This is a suit of the same nature as that in the case of this plaintiff against W. F. Boyle, just decided., The record shows that at the trial the plaintiff took a nonsuit with leave to move to set the same aside,. that a motion to set aside the nonsuit was filed and overruled, and an appeal taken. But there is no bill of exceptions in the case. For the reason stated in the opinion affirming the judgment in the Boyle case this judgment is also affirmed.

All concur, except *Robinson, J.,*absent
Exhibit No. 99.1

TRUSTEE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

I, David J. Kolibachuk, acting on behalf of U.S. Bank Trust National Association (the Trustee), hereby certify that the Trustee has fulfilled its obligations as trustee under the trust
agreement, dated May 20, 2004, between Corporate Asset Backed Corporation, as depositor, and the Trustee, with respect to the CABCO Series 2004-101 Trust (Goldman Sachs Capital I) during the period from January 1, 2012 to December 31,
2012.

Date: February 21, 2013



U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee ofCABCO Series 2004-101 Trust (Goldman Sachs Capital I)By:

/s/ David J. KolibachukName: David J. KolibachukTitle:   Vice President
10056.

#### Bixler *v.*Poulas.

Decided April 19, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Greensboro—Judge Brown. August 12, 1918.

*Noel P.*Park, for plaintiff.

*J. G.*Faust, for defendant.

Luke, J.

1. Where a contract 'of purchase and sale of goods was executory on both sides, notice by the purchaser to the seller to cancel the purchaser’s order for the goods was a breach of the contract, and thereafter the seller could not by an attempt to deliver the goods treat the contract as performed on his part, and sue the purchaser for the full purchase price. See *Linder*v. *Cole Brothers Lightning Rod Co.,*10 *Ga. App.*102 (72 S. E. 719), and cases there cited.

2. The undisputed evidence shows that the order was cancelled by the purchaser several days before the seller undertook to deliver the goods ordered. Upon the evidence the court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                             NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Novellus Systems, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kevin S. Royal, Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

   (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

Date: May 12, 2003                By: /s/ Kevin S. Royal
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Kevin S. Royal
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### David Elsten, plaintiff, *vs.*Andrew Schilling *et al.,*defendants.

In order to relieve a lessor from the obligation of a covenant contained in a lease by him to give the lessee therein a new lease of the demised premises at the end of the term, therein mentioned, provided he had not previously “ disposed of” such premises, it is not necessary that he should have sold them. Any disposition which deprives him of the right of control over them, would be sufficient for that purpose under such a covenant. Of course a collusive parting with them would not be sufficient.

(Before Robertson, Ch. J., at Special Term.)

Heard December 7, 1866,

Decided January 7, 1869.

This was an action by the lessee against the lessor, to enforce a covenant to give anew lease, at the expiration of the term, contained in a lease.

*S. B. Cushing,*for the plaintiff.

*S. B. Egan,*for the defendant Schilling.

Robertson, Ch. J.

By thevterms of the former lease, the defendant Andrew Schilling was "bound to give the plaintiff a new lease, only in case such defendant had not “ *disposed of*” the premises before the expiration of such first lease. The plain meaning of this was, that if the defendant Andrew Schilling did not so retain the control of such premises as to be able to make his lease to the. plaintiff effectual for any purpose, he was not bound by his covenant. It was not necessary for that purpose that he should sell the premises; he might give them away, provided there was no secret agreement to return them • to him. It appears from the testimony of both Andrew and Frederick Schilling, that the former gave such premises to the latter, as an advancement to put him on a footing with other children to whom advancements had been made. This he had a perfect right to do, and thereby divest himself of all interest in such *545premises, so as to render a lease by him utterly nugatory. There does not appear to be any thing suspicious in the transaction. The time selected for the gift was just before the end of the lease, when the holder of a mortgage was pressing for payment, and no sale could be made of the premises, while subject to the plaintiff’s claim. He refused to purchase, and the defendant Andrew Schilling provided for his son, and enabled him to sell the premises and pay the mortgage. There must therefore be judgment for the defendant, dismissing the complaint with costs.

The defendant can draw and present findings of fact and a judgment to be signed.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

LORENZO GARCIA-DELGADO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50286

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-00551-H

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. 

Lorenzo Garcia-Delgado appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and

30-month sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), Garcia-Delgado’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for

FILED

JUL 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-50286

relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided

the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se

supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We

dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d

1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 

DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000836616
<NAME> PREMIER BANCSHARES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          23,097
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,629
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,499
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     91,579
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          90,947
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        394,704
<ALLOWANCE>                                      7,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 587,039
<DEPOSITS>                                     485,606
<SHORT-TERM>                                    33,738
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,703
<LONG-TERM>                                      9,459
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,936
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,598
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 587,039
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 29,975
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,914
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   124
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                36,013
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              15,608
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,708
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,305
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      230
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (29)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 22,153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,696
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,658
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .82
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.75
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,070
<LOANS-PAST>                                        23
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,568
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      296
<RECOVERIES>                                       965
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,393
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
, C.J.



### a—SC.9c Parraguirre J. The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5). Accordingly, we approve attorney Thomas 

### D. Czik's resignation. SCR 98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted.

It is so ORDERED.
Gibbons

, J. Hardesty

cc: David A. Clark, Bar Counsel Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Thomas D. Czik Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A .4etn