alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stanley Moore *v.*James Cowans & McIlvain.

Frauds, Statute of — Undertaking to Answer for Debt of Another.

A transaction was held to be within the Statute of Frauds as an undertaking to answer for the debt of another, and unenforceable because not in writing.

APPEAL FROM NICHOLAS CIRCUIT 'COURT.

February 6, 1873.

*Hargis, for appellant.*

*Phister, Kennedy, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

From an analysis of the testimony this court concludes that Moore consented that Alexander McIlvain should remain in the house, and occupy with his stock a portion of the sheds and lot attached to the barn on the premises conveyed by the Cowans and G. W./ McIlvain. It is immaterial as to whether Moore was entitled to demand possession of the farm on the 11th of February or not. Neither of the vendors refused to surrender possession when it was demanded, and as Moore consented that Alex McIlvain should remain in the house with him, when he might have ejected him, his vendors can not be compelled to account to him for the trouble and annoyance subsequently resulting from this consent. Alex McIlvain was his guest or tenant, and he must look to him for compensation. The counterclaim set up against the Cowans on this account was properly disallowed. Moore’s answer to' Mcllvaine’s cross-petition shows upon its face that he sold the cattle and plank to Aleck and not to G. W. Mcllvaine. Aleck undertook to procure his father to credit Moore by three hundred dollars on his note, but Moore does not pretend that the party to whom he was making the sale had any authority to bind his creditor by this agreement or undertaking. The credit was extended to Aleck, and even if G. W. did afterwards notify the tenant and agree to give the credit, it was a promise to answer for the debt of another, and not being in writing was not legally obligatory. The plea of the statute of fraud was necessarily sustained by the circuit court.

The judgment in favor of the Cowans and of McIlvain are both *affirmed.*
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Stop National Institute of Standards and TechnologyU.S Department of Commerce

2600

MEDIA MAIL

US Postage and fees Paid

Suburban MD 20898

Permit No 6086
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

August 16, 2024

SC-2024-0282

Ex parte Leroy Johnson, Jr. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Leroy Johnson, Jr. v. 

Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.) (Butler Circuit Court: CV-22-4; Civil 

Appeals: CL-2023-0505).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on August 16, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Cook, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Wise, 

Sellers, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
Exhibit 32.2

                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Lorie M. Guerrera, Chief Accounting Officer of Cordia Corporation (the
"Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best
of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the period March 31, 2004 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.


                                           By: Lorie M. Guerrera /s/
                                             --------------------------------
                                              Lorie M. Guerrera
                                              Chief Accounting Officer

May 15, 2004



--------------
*    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
     been provided to Cordia Corporation and will be retained by Cordia
     Corporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its
     staff upon request.
#### LEDFORD v. ASHEVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY

No. 162P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 597

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1997.
ex108


    Cancellation
      of 

    


    Management
      Consulting Contract

    


    The
      Consulting Agreement entered into on July 22, 2005 by and between Axial Vector
      Engine Corporation., a Nevada Corporation (hereinafter the "Company") and
      Twilight Bay, L.L.C., (hereinafter the "Consultant"), having not been
      consummated and the parties agreeing it is in the best interest of both parties
      that the Agreement not proceed at this time, now therefore it is hereby agreed
      that the Management Consulting Agreement of July 22, 2005 is cancelled with
      no
      obligation between either party to the other.

    


    This
      Agreement sets forth the entire agreement and understanding between the parties
      and supersedes all prior discussions, agreements and understandings of every,
      and any, nature between them.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be signed as of
      the
      day and year first written above.

    


    Dated:
      Nov. 1,
      2005                        Dated:
      11-1-05

    


    Twilight
      Bay,
      L.L.C.                        Axial
      Vector
      Engine Corporation

    


    


    /s/
      Nancy Lake       /s/
      Samuel Higgins

    Nancy
      Lake                             
      Samuel
      Higgins

    Director        Secretary/Treasurer

     

    Premier
      Management
      Ltd.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60133

Summary Calendar

 

MUMTAZUL HASAN; YASMIN HASAN; 

JURRAT HASAN; RUTHBA HASAN,

Petitioners,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA Nos. A79 585 381

 A70 585 382

 A79 585 383

 A70 585 384

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

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mumtazul, Yasmin, Jurrat, and Ruthba Hasan (petitioners), are

natives of Bangladesh. They have filed a petition for review of

the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming

the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of their petitions for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against

Torture. 
2

Petitioners’ argument that the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s

decision deprived them of their right to a meaningful agency appeal

is without merit. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7) (2002); Soadjede v.

Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 831 (5th Cir. 2003). 

The IJ’s determination that the petitioners failed to show

that Mumtazul suffered past persecution, as well as the fact that

conditions in Bangladesh have changed such that they no longer have

a well founded fear persecution, is supported by substantial

evidence. See Lopez De Jesus v. INS, 312 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir.

2002); Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350-51 (5th Cir.

2002); Rojas v. INS, 937 F.2d 186, 190 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991); 8

C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1) (1997). Neither have the petitioners shown

that the IJ erred in denying their requests for withholding of

removal or for relief under the Convention Against Torture. See

Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994); Efe v. Ashcroft,

293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). The petition for review of the

BIA affirmance of the IJ’s decision is DENIED.
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of ING Life
Insurance and Annuity Company (the "Company") hereby certifies that, to the
officer's knowledge, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                   By
----------------                      ------------------------------------------
    (Date)                              Keith Gubbay
                                        Director and President
Order entered November 14, 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00090

- CR

DAVID BRIAN NEFF, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401

- 82288

- 2018



### O RDER

Before the Court is the State’s November 12, 2019 second motion for extension of time

to file its brief. The State has tendered its brief with the motion. We GRANT the motion and

ORDER the State’s brief filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
Exhibit 13.2

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 Annual Report of Global Mainframe Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended April 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
 "Report"), I, David Crombie, Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Accounting Officer), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
 the Company.



Date:  November 13, 2007


/s/ David Crombie
Name: David Crombie
Title:  Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4115 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 309
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4115

                          [Report No. 108-535]

To amend the Act of November 2, 1966 (80 Stat. 1112), to allow binding 
arbitration clauses to be included in all contracts affecting the land 
        within the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Reservation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2004

Mr. Hayworth (for himself and Mr. Flake) introduced the following bill; 
            which was referred to the Committee on Resources

                              June 9, 2004

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Act of November 2, 1966 (80 Stat. 1112), to allow binding 
arbitration clauses to be included in all contracts affecting the land 
        within the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Reservation.

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

SECTION 1. BINDING ARBITRATION FOR SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN 
              RESERVATION CONTRACTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 2(c) of the Act of November 2, 1966 (25 
U.S.C. 416a(c)), is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence--
                    (A) by striking ``Any lease'' and all that follows 
                through ``affecting land'' and inserting ``Any 
                contract, including a lease, affecting land''; and
                    (B) by striking ``such lease or contract'' and 
                inserting ``such contract''; and
            (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``Such leases or 
        contracts entered into pursuant to such Acts'' and inserting 
        ``Such contracts''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the Indian Tribal Economic Development and 
Contract Encouragement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-179).

                                                 Union Calendar No. 309

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4115

                          [Report No. 108-535]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To amend the Act of November 2, 1966 (80 Stat. 1112), to allow binding 
arbitration clauses to be included in all contracts affecting the land 
        within the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Reservation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 9, 2004

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 22

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF TIDELAND ROYALTY TRUST "B"

                       TIDELANDS ROYALTY "B" CORPORATION
#### JOHNSON v. SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTORS, INC.

No. 282PA97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 103

Petition by Seimans Energy & Automation, Inc. and Zurich-American Insurance Co. for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 23 July 1997.
10715.

#### Groover *v.*Terrell.

Decided November 6, 1919.

Action for damages; from city court of Hinesville'—Judge W. C. Hodges. June 5, 1919.

*Ben. A.*Way, for plaintiff in error.

*O. G.*Dorsey, contra.

Smith, J.

In this case the motion for a new trial contained only the usual general grounds. There was evidence to authorize the verdict; and the verdict having been approved by the trial judge, we are, under the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, powerless to interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., amd Stephens, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JANUARY
31, 1996 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                          41,373
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  452,855<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    482,974
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,008,191
<PP&E>                                          95,054<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,199,039
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          254,561
<BONDS>                                        380,713
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           350
<OTHER-SE>                                     455,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,199,039
<SALES>                                        666,236
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               666,236
<CGS>                                          336,180
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  336,180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,942
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 73,574
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,153
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             47,421
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,096)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,325
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.32<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28<F2>
<FN>
<F1>This asset value represents a net amount.
<F2>The amount reported for EPS primary and fully diluted is in compliance with
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, "Earning Per Share," and
represents the Basic and Diluted calculation as required by this standard.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

                                                  
                                                          May 13, 1998

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

     Re: Continental Natural Gas, Inc.
         Registration on Form S-8

We are aware that our reports dated May 5, 1998 on our review of interim
financial information of Continental Natural Gas, Inc. for the three month
periods ended March 31, 1998 and 1997 and included in the Company's quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1998 is incorporated by
reference in the Company's registration statements on Form S-8 (File No.
333-43015). Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this
report should not be considered a part of the registration statement prepared or
certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


                                                        COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
EXHIBIT 31.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO




SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




March 28, 2011




I, Thomas A. Davidson, Vice President and senior officer in charge of securitization of CDF Funding, Inc., certify that:




1.           I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10–K of GE Dealer Floorplan Master Note Trust (the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);




2.           Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4.           Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements; and




5.           All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K.









In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party:  Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.







/s/ Thomas A. DavidsonName:
Thomas A. DavidsonTitle:
Vice President and senior officer in charge of securitization for CDF Funding, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7969

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JASON CARL THOMAS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:03-cr-00019-BO-1; 5:07—cv-00009-BO) 

Submitted: January 13, 2009 Decided: January 20, 2009 

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit 

Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Jason Carl Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Neal Fowler, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Jason Carl Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Thomas has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.6


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the inclusion in this registration statement on
Form S-1 of our report dated February 3, 1997, on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of Midcontinent Broadcasting Co. of
Wisconsin, Inc. We also consent to the reference to our firm under the
caption "Experts".



                                            COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 27, 1998