alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10289.

#### ASKEW *et al. v.*WILSON, tax-collector, *ei al.*

Decided June 9, 1919.

1. The sufficiency of the description of the property embraced in a mortgage is a question of law for the court,' and the identity of the property mortgaged is a question of fact for the jury. *First National Bank*v. *Spicer,*10 *Ga. App.*503 (73 S. E. 753).

2. Where a case involving questions both of law and of fact is decided by the judge, without the intervention of a jury, and no motion for a new trial is made, but a direct bill of exceptions is sued out, complaining of the decision or order rendered, a statement in the bill'of exceptions that the order of the court is assigned as error “upon the grounds that said order is contrary to law” is not a specific or valid assignment of error, and can not be considered by this court. *Newberry*v. *Tenant,*121 *Ga.*561 (49 S. E. 621); *Lyndon*v. *Georgia Ry. & El. Co.,*129 *Ga. 353*(58 S. E. 1047).

*(a)*In such a case, however, this court will consider a specific assignment of error upon any antecedent ruling which entered into and affected the final result. *Stewart*v. *Marietta Trust & Banking Co.,*129 *Ga.*417 (59 S. E. 231).

Money xule; from city court of Newnan—Judge Post. December 13, 1918.

*W. Y. Atkinson, W. L. Stallings,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Garland M. Jones,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

Under the rulings in the headnotes the only assignment of error which can be considered in the instant ease is the exception to the admission in evidence of a certain mortgage. As shown by the bill of exceptions, the mortgage was objected to “upon the grounds that the description of the articles sought to be mortgaged was too vague, indefinite, and uncertain, to constitute a valid mortgage.” The description of the mortgaged *772property was as follows: “I mortgage and convey to the payee and his assigns the following property, which is mine, in my possession and unencumbered: Blacksmith tools and auto tools owned by me.” It is well settled that the law does not require a mortgage to describe the property .so as to identify it without the aid of parol evidence. In our opinion .the judge was authorized to construe this description as meaning *all*of the blacksmith and. auto tools owned by the mortgagor, and, under the rulings in *International Harvesler Co.*v. Davis, 13 *Ga. App.*1 (78 S. E. 770), and *Jones & Damren Co.*v. Lott, 17 *Ga. App.*834 (88 S. E. 719), the description was sufficiently definite to constitute a valid mortgage.

The contention in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, that upon the trial there was no parol evidence to aid in identifying the mortgaged property, is not raised in the. bill of exceptions or in the record, and can not be considered.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*
3/14/22, 6:22 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/a13db841-8e09-4ffb-8155-6bb762a9a9ec

blob:https://www.fdms.gov/a13db841-8e09-4ffb-8155-6bb762a9a9ec

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

1/1

As of: 3/14/22 6:22 PM

Received: March 14, 2022

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. l0q-typ6-mnaw

Comments Due: April 25, 2022

Submission Type: Web

Docket: NIST-2022-0001

Evaluating and Improving NIST Cybersecurity Resources: The Cybersecurity Framework and

Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management

Comment On: NIST-2022-0001-0001

RFI-2022-03642

Document: NIST-2022-0001-DRAFT-0006

Comment on FR Doc # N/A

Submitter Information

Name: David Carpenter

Address:

Davenport,  IA,  52807

General Comment

The NIST CSF is rightfully targets helping organizations both private and public to help secure their

infrastructure from compromise. From a government perspective, this is where the most amount of

damage is likely to occur. However, the number of devices that are part of home networks is increasing

and these numbers will continue to rise as companies add more IoT devices to the ecosystem. Recently

my plumber offered to install a WiFi enabled sump pump. The majority of people that are installing new

IoT, to include this plumber, are not cybersecurity experts and they leave securing IoT items to the

homeowner. Most people assume that they are best with the factory settings, to include the default admin

and password. All of these devices to include home computer systems offer a large pool for potential

botnets and launch points that adversaries can take advantage of in attacks against US critical

infrastructure. This type of obfuscation further complicates any response to mitigate these attacks. CISA’s

Security Tip 15-002 (https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ncas/tips/ST15-002) has many of the things that are

worth doing but could be bolstered by having the NIST’s CSF’s concise design to back it up and using the

NIST CSF as a guide it could help home owners to secure their networks by going beyond just these

basics.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

ABC Corporation I, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.:

1:20−cv−04806

Honorable Thomas M.

Durkin

The Partnership and Unincorporated Associations

Identified on Schedule "A", et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, December 23, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Telephone conference

held on 12/23/2020. For the reasons stated on the record, Third Party Plaintiff eBay, Inc.'s

Motion for Relief from the Preliminary Injunction Order [128], [129] is granted in part

and denied in part. A revised proposed preliminary injunction order is to be submitted

today with the changes outlined during the telephone conference. eBay is to comply with

the new order by 12/28/2020, or within five days of the date of entry of the order. 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.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 145 Filed: 12/23/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:4855
10123.

#### Griffin, alias Beck, *v.*The State.

Decided February 1, 1919.

Bloodworth, J.

The facts set out in the answer of the judge of the county court to the writ of certiorari support the allegations of the indictment, and the judge of the superior court properly overruled the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., concurs. Stephens, J., concurs dubitante.*

*375Certiorari; from Putnam superior court—Judge Park. September 16, 1918.

Will Griffin, alias Beck, was convicted in the county court under an indictment which charged that, with intent to cheat, swindle, and defraud M. C. Carnes, he secured from Carnes $1 by representing that he had in his possession five cords of cord wood, and by agreeing to sell and deliver the wood to Carnes, when in fact the wood was not in his possession. He took the case to the superior court by certiorari, alleging that the conviction was contrary to law and the evidence. The evidence was set out in the answer to the certiorari as follows: “M. C. Carnes testified that he bought five cords of wood from Griffin and paid him a dollar on the purchase-price ; that in Eatonton he told Mr. George Hearn, with whom Griffin was living, that he had bought this wood and had paid a dollar on it, and was coming after the wood; that Mr. Hearn told him Griffin had no wood, that it was his wood, and that he need not come, because he could not get it. Carnes then asked Hearn to pay him his dollar back, which he refused to do. Carnes then went to see Will Griffin, and Will Griffin told him that he did not have any wood down at Mr. Hearn’s, and also refused to pay him the dollar that he had paid him, telling him to go down there and get the wood that belonged to Hearn, and Hearn would never know anything about it.”

*R. C. Jenkins, R. D.*Stubbs, for plaintiff in error.

*Doyle Campbell, solidtor-engeral,*contra.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Mish International Monetary Inc.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04577

Honorable Gary Feinerman

Vega Capital London, Ltd., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, October 5, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gary Feinerman:Motions to appear pro hac

vice [17], [18] and [19] is granted. Defendant shall file its motion to dismiss by

11/27/2020; Plaintiff shall file its response brief by 1/26/2021; Defendant shall reply by

2/26/2021. Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures shall be served by 11/9/2020. Plaintiff may serve

Civil Rule 34 requests seeking the production of documents that Defendant previously

produced to the CFTC, the CME, the NYMEX, or other regulators. All other discovery is

stayed absent further order of court; either side may move for relief from this discovery

stay. The status hearing set for 10/9/2020 [4] is stricken and re−set for 12/1/2020 at 9:00

a.m. Attorneys/Parties should appear for the hearing by calling the Toll−Free Number:

(877) 336−1828, Access Code: 4082461. Members of the public and media will be able to

call in to listen to this hearing (use toll free number). Please, please be sure to keep your

phone on mute when you are not speaking. Persons granted remote access to proceedings

are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and

rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in

sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future

hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by

the Court. Mailed notice.(jlj, )

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.
**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF      2002**

|   | (3) | such                Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 fully complies                with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities                Exchange                Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (4) | the                information contained in such Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period                ended                June 30, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial                condition and results of operations of BrightStar Information Technology                Group, Inc. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    |                                                  |                                                          |
|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                             |                                                     |
| Date: August              10, 2006 | By:                                         | /s/ John              M.              Coogan   |
|                                    | John                M. Coogan                         |
|                                    | Chief                Financial                Officer |
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27111]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds--Company Name 
Change; Bituminous Casualty Corporation

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 3 to the Treasury Department Circular 
570, 2014 Revision, published July 1, 2014, at 79 FR 37398.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given by the Treasury that 
the above-named company formally changed its name as follows:
    BITCO General Insurance Corporation (NAIC #20095). Federal bond-
approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the 
Treasury Circular 570 (``Circular''), 2014 Revision, to reflect this 
change.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at 
http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570.
    Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial 
Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West 
Highway, Room D22, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

    Dated: November 12, 2014.
Kevin McIntyre,
Manager, Financial Accounting and Services Branch, Bureau of the Fiscal 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-27111 Filed 11-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-P
9796.

#### Keene *v.*Kennedy.

Decided January 15, 1919.

Action for damages; from Laurens superior court—Judge Kent. April 25, 1918.

*R. Earl Gamp,*for plaintiff.

*Faircloth & Claxton,*for defendant.

Jenkins, J.

Keene brought complaint in tort against Kennedy, alleging a ■

wrongful personal injury inflicted upon the tenant of the petitioner, whereby special damage resulted to the plaintiff. Upon the conclusion of the testimony the judge granted a nonsuit. The evidence as to the amount of the alleged loss thus incurred by the plaintiff was not sufficiently definite or certain to authorize any verdict in his favor for special damages; while the testimony clearly indicates that the plaintiff in no way uáed or attempted to use the means at his disposal whereby he might have reduced or satisfied the damages claimed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. , Petitioner,

v.
HAMDIJA TURKANOVIC , Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3416

Opinion filed December 1, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

. Jason F. Joseph of Gladstone Law Group, P.A., Boca Raton , for Petitioner. James C. Cumbie of Cumbie Law Firm P.A., Jacksonville , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM. Petitioner, Bank of America , N.A. (BOA) , seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from compelling the deposition of its corporate representative in furtherance of Respondent’s motion seeking an award of attorney’s fees as a s anction against BOA for filing this allegedly frivolous foreclosure case. We agree with BOA2 that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose the sanction sought by Respondent because BOA voluntarily dismissed this case within the safe harbor period in se ction 57.105(4), Florida Statutes, and before Respondent filed his motion for sanctions

. See

Pino v. Bank of New York , 121 So. 3d 23, 42 (Fla. 2013); Pomeranz & Landsman Corp. v. Miami Marlins Baseball Club, L.P. , 143 So. 3d 1182, 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) . Respondent cannot avoid this jur isdictional bar by filing the motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 and basing the request for sanctions on “ the inherent power of the Court” rather than section 57.105 (1)

. See Hall v. Lopez , 41 Fla.

L. Week ly D1763, n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA July 28, 2016) (noting that “a trial court has a limited inherent authority to assess attorney’s fees against an attorney or party for bad faith conduct, but ‘if a specific statute or rule applies, the trial court should rely o n the applicable rule or statute rather than on inherent authority.’” ( quoting Moakley v.

Smallwood , 826 So. 2d 221, 224

- 27 (Fla. 2002)). Accordingly, BOA’s petition for writ of prohibition is GRANTED. B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR

.
Exhibit 1 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 523-1 Filed: 04/27/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:13737
No. 0406796 

Business License 

(Duplicate) (Duplicate No. 1-1)

Unified Social Credit Identifier: 91441900MA4UQ3HH9Q

Name: Dongguan Saibotant Energy Tech Co., Ltd.

Type of Enterprise: Limited Liability Company (Nature Person Investment or Holding)

Address: 2

nd Floor, Building A, No.1 Feifa Road, Zhangyang Community, 

Zhangmutou Town, Dongguan

Legal Representative: Xie Rongqing

Registered Capital: RMB five million Yuan

Date of Establishment: May 29, 2016

Term of Validity: long-term

Scope of Business: R & D, production, processing and sales: solar energy equipment, electronic 

products, hardware products, general mechanical equipment and accessories; 

Sales: plastic products; Import and export of goods and technology. 

(Business requiring government approval can only be carried out when such 

approval from relevant department is obtained) 

Please submit annual report before June 30 each year, or you 

will receive credit penalties or penalties for the overdue. 

Approaches: log in to the Website of National Enterprise 

Information Publicity System, or the official WeChat account 

of Dongguan Industry and Commerce

Issued by: 

Dongguan Administration for 

Industry & Commerce (Stamp) 

July 9, 2018 

Website of National Enterprise Information 

Publicity System: http://www.gsxt.gov.cn

Made under Supervision of the 

State Administration for Market Regulation

QR Code 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 523-1 Filed: 04/27/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:13738
Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 523-1 Filed: 04/27/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:13739
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 389 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 389

To authorize the use of certain grant funds to establish an information 
 clearinghouse that provides information to increase public access to 
                       defibrillation in schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2003

Mr. Shimkus (for himself, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Rush, 
and Mr. Pickering) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the use of certain grant funds to establish an information 
 clearinghouse that provides information to increase public access to 
                       defibrillation in schools.

    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 ``Automatic Defibrillation in Adam's 
Memory Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

    Subsection (c) of section 312 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 244), as amended by Public Law 107-188, is amended--
            (1) at the end of paragraph (5), by striking ``and'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
            ``(6) establish an information clearinghouse that provides 
        information to increase public access to defibrillation in 
        schools; and''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RAYMOND CHARLES CREASON

No. 364A96

(Filed 9 May 1997)

On appeal of a constitutional question pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(1) from a decision of the Court of Appeals, 123 N.C. App. 495, 473 S.E.2d 771 (1996), finding no error in the judgment entered by Wood, J., at the 24 January 1995 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Rowan County. Submitted to the Supreme Court 16 April 1997 without oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(d) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

*Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Christopher E. Allen, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Carlyle Sherrill for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 10.3**
**Summary of Employment Arrangement with G. Peter D’Aloia**
G. Peter D’Aloia serves as Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the company.  Mr. D’Aloia’s employment agreementdated December 3, 1999 provides that he will receive annually a stockoption grant covering at least 50,000 shares of the company’s common stock.Due to an adjustment in the company’s general option grant practice,Mr. D’Aloia received grants covering only 43,000 shares in February, 2003and 36,000 shares in February, 2004.  Effective May 27, 2004, shareholdersapproved a three-for-one-split of the company’s common stock and outstandingstock options were adjusted accordingly. On July 7, 2004, the companyapproved a special stock option grant to Mr. D’Aloia covering 28,000 shares,to make up for his reduced grants in 2003 and 2004. This grant becomesexercisable in its entirety on July 7, 2005 and has a term of eight years.In addition, Mr. D’Aloia will receive a cash payment of approximately$290,000 upon retirement, representing the difference in exercise pricebetween the July 7, 2004 grant and the earlier grants.