alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Fannin, etc. *v.*John Steele.

Alteration of Instruments — Effect of Alteration As to Surety.

The'principal of a note and the payee thereof do not have the right to change the note without the consent of the surety, although the effect of the change might be to the interest of the surety.

APPEAL FROM MORGAN' CIRCUIT COURT.

December 20, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

•We are of opinion that the alteration of the note from the sum for which it was originally drawn, was a material one, and as it was made without the knowledge or consent of these appellants, it had the effect of releasing them from liability. Their plea of non est factum should have been sustained. It does not matter that the alteration' of the note made its amount less than it was 'originally drawn for. It certainly changed the character of the obligation, and the law will not imply authority upon the part of the principal in the note and the payee to' make such change, even though its effect might possibly be to the interest of the sureties. The refusal of the circuit court to give the first instruction asked for by appellants was error.

*131/. T. *Hazelrigg, Hazelrigg, for appellant.*

*Cooper, for appellee.*

The second instruction should also have been given. There is no evidence showing that appellants resided in Morgan county during the time the running of the statute of' limitations was suspended in that county.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,262
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,194)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         281,163
<DEPRECIATION>                                (46,033)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 265,640
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        184,126
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,091
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   265,640
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,017
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,460
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,531
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,531
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     61
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,592
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.44


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements File No. 33-80955 and 33-06983.


                                                    ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Dallas, Texas,
March 30, 1998
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3981

To reclassify fees paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund as offsetting collections, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2004

Mr. BARTON of Texas (by request): introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To reclassify fees paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund as 

offsetting collections, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. NUCLEAR WASTE FUND MANAGEMENT. 

4 Beginning on October 1, 2004, and continuing 

5 through the end of the fiscal year when construction is 

6 complete for surface facilities for the fully operating repos7 itory as described in the license application, fees collected 

8 by the Secretary of Energy and deposited into the Nuclear 

9 Waste Fund the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 

10 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) shall be credited to the Nuclear 
2

•HR 3981 IH 

1 Waste Fund as offsetting collections in amounts not to 

2 exceed the amounts annually appropriated during that pe3 riod from the Nuclear Waste Fund. 

4 SEC. 2. APPORTIONMENT CONTROLS. 

5 Section 302(e)(4) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

6 of 1982, as amended, is hereby rescinded.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Perfisans Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Bok Wong, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

- the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                         
|-------------------------
|                         
|Date:   November 13, 2007
|                         
|                         

---
----

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

| (1) | The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               |                                  |                      |
|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                               | STUDIO ONE MEDIA, INC.                |
|                               |                                  |                      |
| Date:  February 16, 2010 | By:                         | /s/  Preston J. Shea |
|                               | Preston J. Shea                       |
|                               | President and Chief Executive Officer |

|                               |                                                 |                          |
|------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                               | STUDIO ONE MEDIA, INC.                               |
|                               |                                                 |                          |
| Date:  February 16, 2010 | By:                                        | /s/  Kenneth R. Pinckard |
|                               | Kenneth R. Pinckard                                  |
|                               | Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer |
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT
TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B)





OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Annual Report of EPL Intermediate, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen E. Carley,
President 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) 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:
March 31, 2009




/s/
      Stephen E. CarleyStephen E.
      CarleyPresident
              EPL Intermediate,
Inc.





This
certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not
for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to EPL Intermediate, Inc. and will be retained by
EPL Intermediate, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2012/03/nist-to-require-us-government-agencies-to-validate-dnssec/&ei=KSI1VeaiA7DasATJ7oGYAQ&bvm=bv.91071109,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNGDq4lpdmIK1bEmmEOUPj-wz46udA&ust=1429631907073062

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2012/03/nist-to-require-us-government-agencies-to-validate-dnssec/&ei=KSI1VeaiA7DasATJ7oGYAQ&bvm=bv.91071109,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNGDq4lpdmIK1bEmmEOUPj-wz46udA&ust=1429631907073062

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http://www.percsolutions.com/our-company/partners/&ei=ayM1Vea6ELaasQSx1YDQAg&bvm=bv.91071109,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNHay9wOcRZSlZGDJoVXkI7fzJeqxQ&ust=1429632231597420

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http://www.percsolutions.com/our-company/partners/&ei=ayM1Vea6ELaasQSx1YDQAg&bvm=bv.91071109,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNHay9wOcRZSlZGDJoVXkI7fzJeqxQ&ust=1429632231597420

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http://ncet.org/ncet-tech-wedspectiraug-14/&ei=iCQ1VajZBNe1sQSlqoHYBQ&bvm=bv.91071109,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNFqkH5UNIA_ak_8RKLqQ281pAgrMQ&ust=1429632514862421

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http://ncet.org/ncet-tech-wedspectiraug-14/&ei=iCQ1VajZBNe1sQSlqoHYBQ&bvm=bv.91071109,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNFqkH5UNIA_ak_8RKLqQ281pAgrMQ&ust=1429632514862421

- Slide Number 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Michael Marzette

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−05119

Honorable Mary M. Rowland

SP Plus Corporation

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, November 9, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: A notice of voluntary

dismissal (Dkt. [18]) has been filed. This case is dismissed without prejudice. Any

pending motions or schedules in this case are stricken as moot. Civil case terminated.

Mailed notice. (dm, )

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-05119 Document #: 19 Filed: 11/09/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:188
#### Paul Allen FRIEDLINE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, SUSSEX II STATE PRISON, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-7406.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 23, 2004.

Paul Allen Friedline, Appellant pro se. Margaret Winslow Reed, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Paul Allen Friedline seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 29, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on August 24, 2004. Because Friedline failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented *893in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Steamer St. Patrick *v.*W. G. Evans.

Pleading — Demurrer.

Where the declaration, if the proceedings be construed to be a personal action, discloses no cause of action, and if construed to be an admiralty case, the demurrer to the declaration pending in the county court should be sustained, and judgment for plaintiff denied.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY COURT.

March 6, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

This somewhat anomalous case was commenced by a warrant before a justice of the peace for $95.90, under the enlarged jurisdiction of justices, in Jefferson county; the warrant being against “Captain Hart, owner and master of the steamboat St. Patrick,” and the claim' being for “freight not delivered, lost and damaged by said boat.”

It appears that on a trial of the case the justice rendered a judgment against the defendant for $99.90, from which an appeal was taken to the Jefferson Court of Common Pleas, and thence removed to ahd prosecuted in the county court.

It further appears that in the county court the plaintiff filed a declaration setting forth his claim for the non-delivery and loss of the freight, not against Hart, but against “The Steamer St. Patrick,” which he styled the defendant in the caption of the pleading, and therefore the following written objection was filed by Mr. Brown, as counsel, and overruled by the court: “The defendant, not appearing in this case, objects ho the proceedings because no process has been served on any proper party for which the defendants are bound to answer.” And the said counsel for the defendant filed a demurrer to the petition substantially on the ground that the plaintiffs claim, as asserted, being of admiralty jurisdiction, could only be prosecuted in a court of the United States. The court overruled the demurrer; and an answer being filed in the name of the Steamer St. Patrick, traversing the allegations of the petition, the law and facts were submitted to and tried by the court, without the intervention of a jury, and the trial resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff for $75, to reverse which this appeal is prosecuted.

*541
      *Jeff Brown, for appellant.*

It is plain that if the proceeding be construed to be a personal action against Hart, the declaration disclosed no cause of action against him, and as the amount in controversy was such as to require the statement of a cause of action in writing, the judgment was unauthorized for that reason. And if, as seems to have been intended by the plaintiff, his case was one of admiralty jurisdiction, although not characterized in its presentation by all the distinguishing features of such a suit, then the demurrer should have been sustained for want of jurisdiction in the justice and the county court *(Stuart v. Harry,*3 Bush 438, and cases therein cited).

It results that in either aspect of the case the judgment is erroneous. Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cases remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

-, *for appellee.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          41,390
<SECURITIES>                                    18,031
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,270
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,401
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,050
<PP&E>                                          15,191
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,022
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,199<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,789
<SALES>                                         61,073
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,469
<CGS>                                              260
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,681)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,085
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 261
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,503
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,705
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,798
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,798
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10<F1>
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES THE EFFECT OF A TWO-FOR-ONE STOCK SPLIT WHICH WAS EFFECTIVE JUNE 2,
1998.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Walter F. O’Daniel *v.*P. B. O’Daniel, etc.

Appeal — Review—Sufficiency of evidence.

The preponderance of the evidence is a question for the jury, and the Court of Appeals will not disturb their verdict, unless they were wrongfully instructed as to the law.

Trial — Instructions—Discretion of Court.

It was held that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give a requested instruction after the argument was concluded and the case submitted to the jury.

APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

February 18, 1873.

Opinion.by

Judge Lindsay:

The testimony offered by appellant conduces very strongly to establish the execution by appellee of the note sued on, but when sworn as a witness he states positively that he neither signed the note himself nor authorized any one else, to sign it for him.

It was for the jury to determine as to- the preponderance of the testimony and this court will not in such a case as this disturb their finding, unless they were misinstructed as to the law. The two in*477structions first asked for by appellant were given and he did not except to the giving of the single instruction presented by appellee.

*Beldent, Cleaver, for appellant.*

*Lindseys, Russell, for appellee.*

We are not prepared to decide that the circuit court abused a sound discretion in refusing to give the instruction asked after the argument was concluded and the case submitted to the jury. The instruction was objectionable because it grouped together certain facts the existence of which might have been inferred from, the testimony and by calling especial attention to them1 gave them undue prominence, and besides this the law as defined in this proposed instruction was substantially embodied in the second instruction already given.

Judgment *affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 404 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 404

 To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide penalties for open 
               air drug markets, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2003

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 
    and Commerce, 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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide penalties for open 
               air drug markets, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Open Air Drug Market Penalty Act of 
2003''.

SEC. 2. PENALTIES FOR OPEN AIR DRUG MARKETS.

    (a) In General.--Part D of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
841 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

                        ``open air drug markets

    ``Sec. 423. (a) Whoever commits a specified Federal drug offense, 
knowing that at least one other has committed a specified Federal drug 
offense--
            ``(1) within 500 feet of the place the offense under this 
        section takes place; and
            ``(2) within a 48-hour period;
shall, in addition to any penalty imposed for the specified Federal 
drug offense, be imprisoned 5 years.
    ``(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall 
not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person convicted 
for a violation of this section, nor shall the term of imprisonment 
imposed under this subsection run concurrently with any other term of 
imprisonment, including that imposed for the specified Federal drug 
offense.
    ``(c) As used in this section, the term `specified Federal drug 
offense' means a Federal offense--
            ``(1) of which an element is the distribution or attempted 
        distribution of a controlled substance; and
            ``(2) for which the maximum term of imprisonment that may 
        be imposed equals or exceeds 5 years.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for title II of the 
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 is amended 
by inserting after the item relating to section 422 the following new 
item:

``Sec. 423. Open air drug markets.''.
                                 <all>
```