alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS JOHNSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 315 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS JOHNSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 316 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS JOHNSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 317 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 318 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court
[315 MAL 2023, 316 MAL 2023, 317 MAL 2023 and 318 MAL 2023] - 2

MARCUS JOHNSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of November, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00004

- CV
REGINA KAY SMITH AND JEFFREY SCOTT GROVE, AS SURVIVING PARENTS OF BRITTANY DAWN GROVE v. USI INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.
On Appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. C

- 3969

- 17

- D

- 1

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adju dged against appellant s

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. November 18, 2021
10937.

#### Brantley *v.*Clifton, administrator.

Decided January 27, 1920.

Complaint; from Toombs superior court—Judge Hardeman. August 28, 1919.

*Williams & Corbitt,*for plaintiff in error.

*Lankford <&■ Rogers,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where the court-house of a county had been burned, and no other *permanent*place had been rented for court purposes, an administrator’s sale held at the site of the burned court-house was not void for the reason that after the destruction of the court-house the terms of the superior court of the county were held in a public-school building, under an order of the judge that they be held there “until suitable provision has been made,” it further appearing that when the court was not in session the building was used for school purposes, and that the clerk of the superior court, the ordinary, and the sheriff all had their offices in another building. See, in this connection, *Longworthy*v. *Featherston,*65 *Ga.*165.

2. The court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant, as a refusal to direct a verdict is never error.

3. Where an administrator elects to resell land &t the purchaser’s risk, he should offer it for resale as soon as practicable, and it is a question for the jury whether the second sale occurred as soon as practicable, and, if not, whether the administrator delayed an unreasonable time in offering the land for resale. *Roberts*v. *Smith,*137 *Ga.*30 (2) (72 S. E. 410). In the instant case the first sale of the land occurred on the first Tuesday in December, 1917, which was December 4th. The purchaser, either on December 5th or 6th, refused to comply with his bid. A glance at the calendar will show that it might have been possible to advertise the resale of the land in time for the second sale to occur on the first Tuesday in January, 1918. The administrator, however, advertised the resale of the land in January, 1918, and the second sale was held on the first Tuesday in February, 1918. Whether, under all the facts of the case, it was practicable for the administrator to have advertised the resale of the property in time to resell it on the first Tuesday in *January,*1918, and, if so, whether he delayed an unreasonable time in starting the' advertising, are questions which should have been submitted to the jury; and the court therefore erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

*Judgment reversed.*

*LuJee and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4380 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4380

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 4737 Mile Stretch Drive in Holiday, Florida, as the ``Sergeant First 
              Class Paul Ray Smith Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2004

Mr. Bilirakis 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 4737 Mile Stretch Drive in Holiday, Florida, as the ``Sergeant First 
              Class Paul Ray Smith Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT FIRST CLASS PAUL RAY SMITH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4737 Mile Stretch Drive in Holiday, Florida, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Sergeant 
First Class Paul Ray Smith Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.3


    Exhibit
      10.3

    

     

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        1

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        2

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        3

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        4

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        5

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

    
      
        
        

      

      
        6

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        7

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        8

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        9

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        10

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        11

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        12

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        13
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IEA Income Fund IX, L.P. (the
Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Dennis
J. Tietz, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Cronos Capital
Corp., the General Partner of the Registrant, certify, based on my
knowledge, that:



| | (i)  |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and                                 
| | ---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (ii) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of the Registrant.

| |  |                   |  |    |  |                                                                                                                                      
| |  | ----------------- |  | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | November 14, 2002 |  |    |  |                                                                                                                                      
|
|
|
|
| |  |                   |  |    |  |                                                                                                                                      
|
|
|
|
| |  |                   |  | By |  | /s/ Dennis J. Tietz

Dennis J. Tietz
President and Chief Executive Officer of Cronos Capital Corp.,
General Partner of the Registrant



---

|* |  | This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, other than as required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be
filed with the Commission or subject to the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>

                                 Exhibit (23)

                      Consent Of Independent Accountants
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit (23)

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration
Statements of Mercantile Bankshares Corporation on Form S-3 (No. 33-44376) and
Forms S-8 (No. 33-44373, 33-44374, 33-44375 and 333-90307) of our report dated
January 20, 2000, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of
Mercantile Bankshares Corporation and Affiliates as of December 31, 1999 and
1998 and for the years ended December 31, 1999, 1998 and 1997, which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                         PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Baltimore, Maryland
March 27, 2000
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of Maui Land & Pineapple Company, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2011 (the "Report"), I, Chairman of the Board
and Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
780(d)) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



By:

/s/ WARREN H. HARUKI Warren H. Haruki Chairman of the Board
Interim Chief Executive OfficerMarch 14, 2011


This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

---



QuickLinks
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4359

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the child tax 

credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2004

Mr. PORTER (for himself, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. OTTER, Mr. CRANE, 

Mr. PICKERING, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. BAKER, Mr. BURNS, Mr. WICKER, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mrs. 

MYRICK, Mr. FOSSELLA, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. 

SCHROCK, Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. KIRK, Mr. MURPHY, 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. WELDON of 

Florida, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. AKIN, Mr. 

SHIMKUS, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. 

DEMINT, Mr. KING of Iowa, Ms. HART, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. BEAUPREZ, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. 

GINGREY, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. DUNCAN, Mrs. JO ANN

DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. CAMP, Mr. TIBERI, 

Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. FORBES, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Ms. 

PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. OSE, and Mr. MANZULLO) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the child tax credit.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4359 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Credit Preserva3 tion and Expansion Act of 2004’’.

4 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN CHILD TAX CREDIT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 24 of the 

6 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to child tax cred7 it) is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—There shall be al9 lowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter 

10 for the taxable year with respect to each qualifying child 

11 of the taxpayer an amount equal to $1,000.’’. 

12 (b) INCREASE IN PHASEOUT THRESHOLDS.—Para13 graph (2) of section 24(b) of such Code is amended to 

14 read as follows: 

15 ‘‘(2) THRESHOLD AMOUNT.—For purposes of 

16 paragraph (1), the term ‘threshold amount’ means 

17 $125,000 ($250,000 in the case of a joint return).’’. 

18 (c) ACCELERATION OF INCREASE IN REFUNDABLE

19 PORTION OF CREDIT.—Clause (i) of section 24(d)(1)(B) 

20 of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘(10 percent in the 

21 case of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2005)’’. 

22 (d) COMBAT PAY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.—Para23 graph (1) of section 24(d) of such Code is amended by 

24 adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘For pur25 poses of subparagraph (B), any amount excluded from 

26 gross income by reason of section 112 shall be treated as 
3

•HR 4359 IH 

1 earned income which is taken into account in computing 

2 taxable income for the taxable year.’’. 

3 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

5 December 31, 2003. 

6 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF SUNSET. 

7 Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Rec8 onciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to the provisions 

9 of, and amendments made by, sections 201 and 203 of 

10 such Act.

Æ
#### BURNS v. CHUBB.

No. 12015.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

June 29, 1951.

Richter, Lord & Farage, B. Nathaniel Richter, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Lemuel B. Schofield, Marvin Comisky, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

WELSH, District Judge.

On the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction the motion of the defendant to dismiss will be granted and the motion of the plaintiff to transfer will be denied.

For this Court to acquire complete jurisdiction in a civil action based only on diversity of citizenship it must appear that:

1. There is diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, is in excess of $3,000;

*5822. The action was brought in the district where either the plaintiff or defendant resides;

3. Service of process in accordance with the law was made upon the defendant.

In the present action which is based only on diversity of citizenship, it is conceded that there is diverse citizenship between the parties (plaintiff is a resident and citizen of New Jersey and the defendant is a resident and citizen of Pennsylvania) and that the amount in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, $3,000.

However, it is clear that the present action was not brought in the district where either the plaintiff or the defendant resides, for it was brought in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the plaintiff resides in New Jersey and the defendant resides in Halifax, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania which is in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

As the action was not brought in a proper district, this Court lacks jurisdiction and it is unnecessary to determine whether or not service of process upon the defendant was made in accordance with the law.

Counsel for plaintiff argues however, that this Court under section 1404(a), Title 28 U.S.C.A., has the authority to grant the motion to transfer the action to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. That Section provides: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”

As authority for the proposition that a “civil action” was “brought” in the instant case within the scope of said section 1404(a) said counsel for plaintiff cites Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., which provides that “A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court”.

We cannot agree with counsel’s interpretation of section 1404(a). In our view a “civil action” was “brought” within the meaning of section 1404(a) not when a complaint was filed with the Court, but when the Court acquired jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter. We have already determined that this Court lacks jurisdiction for the reason that the action was not brought in a proper district.

Accordingly, this Court is without authority to transfer the action to any other district where it might have been brought.

An Order in accordance with the foregoing opinion will be prepared and submitted.
#### John W. Adams *v.*John Eckler.

Vendor and Purchaser — Rents and Interest — Set-off.

Where the purchase-price of land has been paid, the court will set off rents and interest; but will not do so where the purchaser enjoys the land and holds on to the purchase-price.

APPEAL FROM HARRISON 'CIRCUIT COURT.

January 5, 1873.

*Trimble, for appellant.*

*Ward, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

This court has never decided that the purchaser was entitled to specific execution of an oral contract for the sale of lands.

Eckler was not confined to the interest on the price agreed to be paid for the land, in the way of rents. When the purchase price is paid, courts will set off rents and interest, but not so where the purchaser enjoys the land and holds on to the price agreed to be paid. The judgment of the court as to1 rents and improvements is as favorable to appellant as the testimony authorized.

It is therefore *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Income and the Consolidated Statement of Financial
Position and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          41,520
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  426,975
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,274
<INVENTORY>                                     38,611
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               682,044
<PP&E>                                       3,802,899
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,375,077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,657,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          791,542
<BONDS>                                      1,223,509
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          305,840
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           680
<OTHER-SE>                                     851,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,657,739
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               788,761
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  662,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,021)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                11,059
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,712
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                117,166
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,397
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             81,769
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    81,769
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4382 

To designate the United States courthouse at 300 North Hogan Street, 

Jacksonville, Florida, as the ‘‘Judge Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2004 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida (for herself and Mr. CRENSHAW) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse at 300 North 

Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida, as the ‘‘Judge 

Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The United States courthouse at 300 North Hogan 

5 Street, Jacksonville, Florida, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Judge Bryan Simpson United States 

7 Courthouse’’. 
2 

•HR 4382 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

4 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

5 to be a reference to the ‘‘Judge Bryan Simpson United 

6 States Courthouse’’. 

Æ