alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hood *v.*Young.

Opinion delivered November 26, 1928.

*441*Hill, Fitehugh <& Brissolara,*for appellant.

*Dobbs & Young,*for appellee.

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The decree of the chancellor was wrong. The testimony of J. M. Young and J. "W. Young, to the effect that E. W. Hood came into their office and told them, in the presence of Reginald Lane, that he was going to assume the payment of the mortgage indebtedness when he purchased the property from Lane, does not entitle Young to recover against Hood the amount of the mortgage indebtedness. Suppose it to be true that Hood did tell Young that he was about to purchase the property from Lane and would assume the mortgage indebtedness, he evidently after-wards changed his mind. He not only did not execute the deed which had been prepared by Young to that effect, but he had his attorneys prepare a new deed, in which he stated that he had purchased the property subject to the mortgage of Young. He executed the deed in this form, and delivered it to Lane. Lane accepted the deed, and its terms became the contract between the parties. The clause in the deed to the effect that the deed was made subject to the mortgage of Young was contractual in its nature, and bound the parties. It could not have even been contradicted by parol evidence. *Wilson*v. *Nugent,*174 Ark. 1115, 299 S. W. 18.

*442The chancellor seems to have proceeded on the theory that the assumption of the mortgage indebtedness by Hood was a part of the- consideration for the execution of the deed by Lane to Hood. Hood denies that he ever agreed to execute a deed in this form. On the other hand, both of the Youngs testified that he did state to them, in the presence of Lane, that such was his agreement. This did not make any difference. Assuming it to be true, the parties evidently changed their, minds. Instead of executing the deed with the clause that he assumed the balance of the Young' mortgage, Hood declined to execute this deed, and had another one prepared by his attorneys, in which it was stated that the deed was subject to the Young mortgage. In this form the deed was executed by Hood and delivered to Lane. As we have .just seen, the clause that the deed was subject to the Young mortgage was contractual in its nature, and became the contract between Hood and Lane, who were the contracting parties. There is no clause in it indicating that Hood assumed the Young mortgage. On the contrary, the deed expressly recites that it is made subject to the Young mortgage. Young was not a party to the contract between Hood and Lane, and had no rights under it except what the contract itself gave him. Hence the chancellor erred in holding that Hood agreed to assume the mortgage indebtedness to Young.

For' that error the decree will be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint against E. W. Hood. No appeal was taken by Nell A. Lane, and the judgment and decree of foreclosure against her are not affected by this appeal.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #14182 and #14183]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Arizona (FEMA-4203-DR), dated 11/05/2014. *Incident:*
                         Severe storms and flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         09/07/2014 through 09/09/2014. *Effective Date:*
                         11/05/2014. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         01/05/2015. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         08/05/2015.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 11/05/2014, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     La Paz, Maricopa. The Interest Rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625For Economic Injury:Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14182B and for economic injury is 14183B. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008). James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2014-27169 Filed 11-14-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

Larry Jones, 

Defendant(s).

Case No. 20 CR 309-1

Judge Virginia M. Kendall

ORDER

ORDER as to Larry Jones: Change of plea hearing held. Defendant enters plea of guilty to 

Counts 1 and 3 of the Indictment. The Court accepts a plea of guilty and enters Judgment. Enter 

Plea Agreement. Cause referred to the Probation Office for a presentence investigation. 

Sentencing set for 4/21/2023 at 12:30 p.m. Sentencing position papers due on or before 

4/7/2023. The Court directs the disclosure of the Probation Department's sentencing 

recommendation to both Defendant and the Government. For the reasons as stated in open Court, 

Defendant's oral motion to remain out of custody is denied. Defendant is ordered detained and 

remanded into federal custody. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(1), if restitution is being sought 

in this case, 60 days prior to the sentencing date, the Government shall provide the Probation 

Office and the courtroom deputy an electronic standardized spreadsheet (available on the Court’s 

website) with a list of victims and their full current contact information. This list shall include 

any amounts subject to restitution. If the Government is not able to provide the full victim list 60 

days prior to sentencing, they shall file a motion to request an extension of time to compile the 

information, to the extent permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5).

(0:45)

Date: 1/19/2023 /s/ Virginia M. Kendall

United States District Judge
EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Patriot Scientific
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Lowell W. Giffhorn, Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge:

      1)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 Company.


                                        /S/ LOWELL W. GIFFHORN
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Lowell W. Giffhorn
                                        Title:  Exec. V.P. and CFO
                                        Date: January 21, 2004
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4176 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

122 West Elwood Avenue in Raeford, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Bobby 

Marshall Gentry Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 20, 2004 

Mr. HAYES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 122 West Elwood Avenue in Raeford, North 

Carolina, as the ‘‘Bobby Marshall Gentry Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BOBBY MARSHALL GENTRY POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 122 West Elwood Avenue in 

7 Raeford, North Carolina, shall be known and designated 

8 as the ‘‘Bobby Marshall Gentry Post Office Building’’. 
2 

•HR 4176 IH 

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the Bobby Marshall Gentry 

5 Post Office Building. 

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ABC Corporation I et al, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS and 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04806 

Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY 

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR DAMAGES 

Comes Now, Defendant Gyroor-US (“Defendant” or “Gyroor-US”), Third-Party 

Respondents Gyroor, Urbanmax, GaodeshangUS, Fengchi-US, Gyroshoes, and HGSM 

(collectively, “Third-Party Respondents”), former wrongfully-enjoined Defendant Jiangyou-US 

(“Jiangyou-US”) and third-party respondent Shenzhen Yanjingmaoyi Co., Ltd. (“Yanjin-US”) 

respectfully move the Court for an Order granting damages to Defendant and Third-Party 

Respondents as a result of the wrongfully issued Preliminary Injunction Order against Plaintiffs 

Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (“Chic”) and Unicorn Global, Inc.’s (“Unicorn”, 

and collectively with Chic, “Plaintiffs”). 

In support of this Motion, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents, Jiangyou-US 

and Yanjin-US Respondents herewith submit a Memorandum of Law. 

Date: 2/9/2024 /s/ Wei Wang

Wei Wang, Esq. 

GLACIER LAW LLP

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 696 Filed: 02/09/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:17859
41 Madison Avenue, Ste 2529 

New York, NY 10010 

wei.wang@glacier.law 

332-777-7315 

GLACIER LAW LLP 

506 Second Ave., Ste 1516 

Seattle, WA 98104 

Na Zhang, Esq. 

queena.zhang@glacier.law 

206-397-8633 

GLACIER LAW LLP 

200 E. Randolph Dr., Ste. 5100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Ruoting Men, Esq. 

ruoting.men@glacier.law

Tianyu Ju, Esq. 

iris.ju@glacier.law 

312-270-0413 

Attorneys for Defendant, ThirdParty Respondents, Jiangyou-US 

and Yanjin-US

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 696 Filed: 02/09/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:17860
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this February 9, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing file with 

the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and service was perfected on all counsel of record 

and interested parties through this system, which will deliver a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing documents via CM/ECF. 

Date: 02/09/2023 

 

/s/ Wei Wang 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 696 Filed: 02/09/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:17861
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51686 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. LOUIS CELEDON Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-103-7 Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Louis Celedon has moved for leave to withdrawand has filed a brief in accordance with Andersv. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Celedon has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Celedon’s response discloses nononfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 16, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-51686

2 excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          63,947
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,957
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,955
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               129,894
<PP&E>                                         148,432
<DEPRECIATION>                                (97,081)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 836,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          572,382
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,968
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,756
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   836,252
<SALES>                                        124,374
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,177
<CGS>                                           20,803
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  268,774
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   705
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (151,807)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (151,807)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (151,807)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)


</TABLE>
Guest Room

Harvest Plates & Pints

Fitness Center

Forensics@NIST MEETING

November 7-9, 2016

GROUP RATE

$125

Or Call 

1-800-HOLIDAY (465-4329)

301-948-8900

Group Code: NFR

Cancellation by 6:00 PM prior to day 

of arrival

CUTOFF DATE: October 24, 2016

Click to Make Reservation

Forensics@NIST Meeting

(Accommodations)

Holiday Inn Gaithersburg

2 Montgomery Village Avenue

Gaithersburg, MD 20879

301-948-8900

 Complimentary Shuttle to & from NIST

 Complimentary Breakfast with NIST Rate

 FREE Cancellation until 6:00 PM Day Before Arrival

 IHG Membership Reward Points 

 Complimentary Round Trip Shuttle to Shady 

Grove Metro & Anywhere Within 5 Mile Radius

 Onsite Restaurant & Bar

 Business Center

 Fitness Center

 5 Mins from Shopping Center & Dining

 Complimentary Wired/Wireless Internet

www.higaithersburg.com
#### F. H. Gaines, etc., *v.*Wm. T. Carlisle.

Sales — Negligence of Purchaser.

The execution, of a note for goods without making examination of a partial invoice, was held to he culpable negligence on the part of the purchaser.

Sales — Representation as to Value.

Representation by the seller of goods as to their value in the aggregate was held to be a mere expression of opinion on which the buyer had no right to rely.

APPEAL FROM GALLATIN CIRCUIT COURT.

April 1, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Gaines was guilty of culpable negligence in making no examination of the partial invoice, before the execution of the note. He does not pretend that an opportunity to do so was denied him. If he be a man of ordinary business capacity it is most remarkable that he should have relied upon Carlisle’s statements as to what this paper showed on the second evening after they began invoicing. One of the parties making it out was his own agent, and he was himself present whilst it was being done. The proof does not show that Carlisle made false statements as to the original cost of the goods. His representations as to the value in the aggregate, or as to the value of any particular article, are to be regarded as mere expressions of opinion upon which Gaines had no right to rely. The instructions given at appellee’s instance are based upon this idea, and are correct. Instruction No. 1 asked for by appellants was misleading, because it directed the jury to find for them1 if they should believe that Carlisle made false representations either as to the amount or the value of the goods. The second was also misleading, in view of the fact that it assumed that there was evidence conducing to show that Carlisle had before the execution secreted the note or destroyed the partial invoice, so as to prevent Gaines from obtaining correct information as to the quantity and value of the goods. Such assumption was wholly unwarranted.

The third instruction asked for was also properly refusd. Whilst the testimony of Carlisle is to some extent varied from that of some *598of the other witnesses there are no such direct contradictions as would have authorized the court to call special attention to these reasonable and natural differences in recollection, and thereby prejudice him' and his testimony in their • estimation. Perceiving no available error in the action of the circuit court, the judgment is *affirmed.*

*Landram, for appellants.*

-, *for appellee.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Art Ask Agency, ) 

) 

 Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-04608 

v. ) 

 ) Hon. Judge Manish S. Shah 

The Individuals, Corporations, 

Limited Liability Companies, 

Partnerships, and 

Unincorporated Associations 

Identified on Schedule A, 

 ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Hon. Mag. Judge Jeffrey Cummings 

 Defendants. ) 

Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time 

NOW COMES Defendants, friday-55, careforyou123, happyeasybuy04, kissbuyonline, 

peoplemarketing, simitter02, worldtechon, 9gardenyardfr, gigibaobao, happyeasybuy01, 

zhangbaobao2013, 6godwater, shoppingsatisfied, 4seasonstores, 10happyendonline, 12colorfuldays, 

heavenstores, sunnyshop06, itechcool, 20yes4buy, fantasticshop2019, happy-shop09, homelovely03, 

15fashionday, 2ndheaven2013, angelsupplier88, niceol, qualityzoneonline, smttrade05, 

universalegoods, simitter01, 3dayandnight, excellbay, joytownonline, perfectyou05, 

rainbowonline2012, topgoodgoods and 21gardenday (“Defendants”), by and through their 

undersigned counsel, and hereby moves this Court to extend the time to file a response to the 

Amended Complaint. In support of their motion, Defendants states as follows: 

1. Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint on August 6, 2020. [Dkt. 8]. 

2. Defendants were ostensibly served with process on September 10, 2020. [Dkt. 31]. 

3. Defendants have been substantively and quantitatively involved in settlement negotiations with 

Plaintiff. 

4. Despite their diligence, Defendants need a short additional time to settle, or exhaust the 

prospect thereof and respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04608 Document #: 57 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:3129
5. The Court previously granted Defendans’ request for an extension, and many of the original 

movants have been resolved. [Dkt. 56]. 

6. This Court may, for good cause, extend the time by which Defendants’ response are due after 

the time has expired if Defendants failed to act because of excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6(b)(1)(B). 

7. Defendants respectfully request this Court extend the date on which Defendants are to have 

filed response(s) to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, if ultimately necessary, to December 23, 

2020. 

8. This Motion has been filed in good faith and is not interposed for purposes of delay. 

9. This is the second motion for an extension of time filed by Defendants. 

10. Plaintiff has indicated that it does not oppose Defendants’ requested extension. 

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable 

Court enter an Order: 

a) extending the date on which Defendants’ response(s) to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are 

due to December 23, 2020. 

Dated: December 2, 2020 

/s/Adam E. Urbanczyk 

Adam E. Urbanczyk 

AU LLC 

564 W. Randolph St. 2nd Floor 

Chicago, IL 60661 

adamu@au-llc.com 

Ph: (312) 715-7312 

Fax: (312) 646-2501 

Attorney for Defendants 

Case: 1:20-cv-04608 Document #: 57 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:3130
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 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.

 

 

| November 12, 2008 |   | By: /s/ | Richard T. Mason                            |
|-------------------|--------|---------|---------------------------------------------|
| (Date)            |   |    | Richard T. Mason

President

 

  |

 

 

 

 

 

 

----