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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6659

KENNETH C. HALL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JON P. GALLEY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-01-

663-L)

Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 2, 2001

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth C. Hall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth C. Hall, a state of Maryland inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West

Supp. 2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Hall v. Galley,

No. CA-01-663-L (D. Md. Apr. 4, 2001). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4425 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4425

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the Purple Heart 
     to be awarded to prisoners of war who die in captivity under 
  circumstances not otherwise establishing eligibility for the Purple 
                                 Heart.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2004

  Mr. Filner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the Purple Heart 
     to be awarded to prisoners of war who die in captivity under 
  circumstances not otherwise establishing eligibility for the Purple 
                                 Heart.

    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 ``Honor Our Fallen Prisoners of War 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AWARD OF PURPLE HEART FOR PRISONERS OF WAR WHO DIE IN 
              CAPTIVITY.

    (a) Persons not Otherwise Eligible for the Purple Heart.--Chapter 
57 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new section:
``Sec. 1134. Purple Heart: members who die while prisoners of war that 
              are not otherwise eligible under the circumstances 
              causing death
    ``(a) For purposes of the award of the Purple Heart, the Secretary 
concerned shall treat a member of the armed forces described in 
subsection (b) in the same manner as a member who is killed or wounded 
in action as the result of an act of an enemy of the United States.
    ``(b) A member described in this subsection is a member who dies in 
captivity under circumstances establishing eligibility for the 
prisoner-of-war medal under section 1128 of this title but not under 
circumstances establishing eligibility for the Purple Heart.
    ``(c) This section applies to members of the armed forces who die 
on or after December 7, 1941. In the case of a member who dies as 
described in subsection (b) on or after December 7, 1941, and before 
the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary concerned 
shall award the Purple Heart under subsection (a) in each case which is 
known to the Secretary before the date of the enactment of this section 
or for which an application is made to the Secretary in such manner as 
the Secretary requires.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1134. Purple Heart: members who die while prisoners of war that are 
                            not otherwise eligible under the 
                            circumstances causing death.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1



                                October 20, 1998



Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc.
4550 Spring Valley Road
Dallas, Texas 75244-3705


Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We have acted as counsel to Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc., a Texas
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the preparation and filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Registration Statement
(Registration No. 333-62021) on Form S-4 originally filed on August 21, 1998, as
amended to the date hereof (together with the exhibits thereto, the
"Registration Statement"), relating to the registration by the Company of its 
10 1/8% Senior Subordinated Senior Notes due 2008.

         In so acting, we have examined originals or copies, certified or
otherwise identified to our satisfaction, of the Registration Statement,
including the Prospectus which is a part thereof (the "Prospectus"), and such
corporate records, agreements, documents and other instruments (the
aforementioned documents together, the "Documents"), and have made such
inquiries of such officers and representatives, as we have deemed relevant and
necessary as a basis for the opinion hereinafter set forth. In such examination,
we have assumed the authenticity of all documents submitted to us as originals,
the conformity to original documents of all documents submitted to us as
certified or photostatic copies, the authenticity of the originals of such
latter documents, the genuineness of all signatures, and the correctness of all
representations made therein. (The terms of the Documents are incorporated
herein by reference.) We have further assumed that the final executed Documents
will be substantially the same as those which we have reviewed and that there
are no agreements or understandings between or among the parties to the
Documents with respect to the transactions contemplated therein other than those
contained in the Documents.









<PAGE>   2





Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc.
October 20, 1998
Page 2


         Based on the foregoing, subject to the next succeeding paragraph, and
assuming full compliance with all the terms of the Documents, it is our opinion
that the discussion included in the Prospectus under the caption "Certain
Federal Income Tax Considerations," insofar as it constitutes statements of law
or legal conclusions and except to the extent qualified therein, is accurate in
all material respects.

         The foregoing opinion is based on current provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the Treasury Regulations promulgated
thereunder, published pronouncements of the Internal Revenue Service, and case
law, any of which may be changed at any time with retroactive effect. No opinion
is expressed on any matters other than those specifically covered by the
foregoing opinion.

         We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        /s/  WEIL, GOTSHAL, & MANGES LLP
Exhibit 10.18



AGREEMENT TO EXTEND SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE

     Come now Hyde Investments Ltd., ("Holder"), National Parking Systems, Inc.,
ABS  Holding  Company,  Inc.,  BH  Holding  Company,  Inc.  and  Marc  Ebersole
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Company"), and agree as follows:

     Whereas,  on  January  13,  2005  the  Company executed that certain SENIOR
SECURED CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE in favor of Holder; and

     Whereas, said SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE is scheduled to come due
on October 15, 2005; and

     Whereas, the Company has requested that the due date of said SENIOR SECURED
CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE be extended through and until June 30, 2006; and

     Whereas,  Holder  has  agreed to extend the due date of said SENIOR SECURED
CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE through and until June 30, 2006.

     Now  therefore,  in  consideration  of  $10.00, and other good and valuable
consideration,  the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
Holder and the Company agree as follows:

     1.  That  certain  SENIOR  SECURED  CONVERTIBLE  DEBENTURE  executed by the
Company  in  favor  of Holder on January 13, 2005 is hereby extended through and
until June 30, 2006.

     2.  Each and every term, condition, and obligation set forth in said SENIOR
SECURED  CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE remains in full force and effect through June 30,
2006.

     3.  Except  for  the  due date, this extension agreement shall not serve to
modify  or  waive any of the terms, conditions and obligations set forth in said
SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE.

     4.  This  extension  agreement  shall  inure  to the benefit of the parties
hereto, and be binding upon them and their successors and assigns.



                            (signatures on next page)

<PAGE>

This       day of                    , 2005.
    -------      -------------------

National  Parking  Systems,  Inc.                     Hyde  Investments,  Ltd.
a  Nevada  corporation

By                                                    By
   -------------------------                            ----------------------
Name:  Marc  Ebersole
Title:  President  and  CEO

ABS Holding Company, Inc.
a Nevada corporation


By:
   ------------------------
Name:  Marc  Ebersole
Title:  President  and  CEO

BH Holding Company, Inc.
a Nevada corporation


By:
   ------------------------
Name:  Marc  Ebersole
Title:  President  and  CEO

Marc  Ebersole


----------------------------------
Individually  and  as  shareholder

<PAGE>
Report of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Post-Effective Amendment
No. 2 to Form S-8 Registration Statement for the ALLTEL Corporation Incentive
Stock Option Plan (No. 2-99523); Form S-8 Registration Statement for
Systematics, Inc. 1981 Incentive Stock Option Plan (No. 33-35343); Form S-8
Registration Statement for the ALLTEL Corporation 1991 Stock Option Plan (No.
33-48476); Form S-8 Registration Statement for the ALLTEL Corporation 1994
Stock Option Plan (No. 33-54175); Form S-8 Registration Statement for the
ALLTEL Corporation Thrift Plan (No. 33-56291); and Form S-8 Registration
Statement for the ALLTEL Corporation 1994 Stock Option Plan for Employees (No.
33-65199) of our report dated March 6, 1998, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of 360 Communications Company,
included in ALLTEL Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K the year ended
December 31, 1998.




                                        /s/Ernst & Young LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 24, 1999

                                       80
#### Church *v.*Fisher, Adm’r.

P.LEading.—Complaint.—Covenant.—In a suit upon a promissory note and to foreclose a mortgage, given for the purchase-money of real estate, an answer attempting to set up a failure of title, but not setting out the deed or any covenants therein, or alleging fraud, is bad.

APPEAL from the Marion Common Pleas.

Worden, J.

This was an action by the appellee against the appellant and his wife, to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendants below to the deceased, in his lifetime, to secure the payment of certain promissory notes.

The defendants answered, secondly, in substance, that the notes were given for a part of the purchase-money for the land mortgaged, which had been sold by Colley to the defendant Church, and conveyed by a warranty deed; that Colley derived his title to the land from one Robert Stewart, who, at the time he conveyed to Colley, had a wife who did not join in the conveyance; that Stewart has departed this life, leaving his wife surviving him, and that she has never, in any manner, relinquished her claim to the land; wherefore the consideration of the notes has failed.

A demurrer was sustained to this paragraph of the answer, and the defendants excepted. Such further proceedings were had as that final judgment was rendered for the plaintiff.

The only question raised here relates to the ruling upon the demurrer above noticed.

The answer was clearly bad, and the demurrer correctly sustained. The foundation of the defence attempted to be set up was a breach of the covenants in. the deed from Colley to the defendant Church. That deed is not set out, nor are any of the covenants therein contained. Without covenants,, in the absence of fraud (and no fraud is alleged), the defence cannot be maintained. *Laughery*v. *McLean,*14 Ind. 106; *Woodford v. Leavenworth,*14 Ind. 311; *Jenkinson*v. *Ewing,*17 Ind. 505; *McClerkin*v. *Sutton,*29 Ind. 407.

We pass by the question whether an action could be maintained upon the statutory covenants in a deed, or a defence *146made thereon by way of recoupment or counter claim, for a partial or total failure of title, where there has been no eviction, and where the purchaser has enjoyed the undis-. turbed possession of the land, which, so far as appears, was the case here. It is sufficient for the purposes of this case to say that the covenants, which are the foundation of the defence, are not set out by copy or otherwise, as required by statute.

*W. W. Woollen*and *J. H Ruddell,*for appellant.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Order filed Ju ly 1 , 2021

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00175

- CR

____________ JACOBE DANTE PAYTON , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 400th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 17

- DCR

- 077001A



### ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to T exas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original s of State's Exhibit s 108 and 109, video s .The clerk of the 400th District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this

court the original of State's Exhibit s 108 and 109 , video s , on or before July 15 , 2021. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe these original
exhibit s ; to deliver them to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original s of State's Exhibit s 108 and 10 9 , video s , to the clerk of the 400th District Court

.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
#### Klingensmith *v.*Sourwine et al.

Practice.—Appeal.—Evidence.—Where the evidence of one party supports the verdict, the Supreme Court will not reverse the judgment upon the ground of the conflict or weight of oral evidence.

APPEAL from the Marion Common Pleas.

*I. Klingensmith,*for appellant.

*J. W. Nichol*and *L. Jordan,*for appellees.

Pettit, C. J.

This suit was brought by the appellees against the appellant, to recover for money had and received. Answer of general denial, trial by jury, verdict for the appellees, motion for new trial overruled, exception taken, and judgment on the verdict.

The only error assigned is the overruling of the motion for a new trial; and that motion was for the insufficiency of the evidence to justify or support the finding and verdict of the jury. The evidence is in the record, and we have carefully read and re-read it, and if there ever was a case which justified the ruling of this court, so often repeated, that we will not reverse upon the weight or conflict of oral evidence given below, this is one. The plaintiffs’ evidence fully and abundantly justified the verdict, while the defendant’s evidence as fully justified and required the verdict to be for him. In other words, it is directly and squarely contradictory. In such a case, we cannot reverse the judgment, but must leave the action of the jury and court below, who saw and heard the witnesses, to stand as they saw proper to determine.

The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.
#### W. H. Logan *v.*Solomon Johnson.

Appeal — Jurisdiction—Amount in Controversy.

The amount claimed hy appellant and the set-off claimed by appellee cannot be added together in order to give the Court of Appeals jurisdiction.

APPEAL PROM PULASKI CIRiCUIT COURT.

December 20, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

This court has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter in controversy. The claim asserted is for only fifty-two dollars. The set- . off or counterclaim' is for a similar amount, or nearly so. The issue is whether or not the appellee is indebted to the appellant in the sum claimed hy him'. If the appellee has a set-off or counterclaim equal in amount, then that indebtedness does not exist. You can not, by adding the amount claimed by the appellant and the set-off *388claimed by the appellee, give to this court jurisdiction. If this can be done, then the magistrate had *no*jurisdiction when the original case was heard. Tire amount claimed in the petition or warrant, unless a judgment should be rendered against the plaintiff on a set-off or counterclaim, is for a sum exceeding fifty dollars, that is, if the warrant should be for fifty dollars, and upon an appeal to ■the circuit court, a set-off or counterclaim should be pleaded in which a judgment is rendered for a sum exceeding fifty dollars against the plaintiff, such a judgment would give this court jurisdiction. In. this case the judgment is for $15.00 only. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

*Morrow, for appellant.*

*Denton, Curd, Fox, for appellee.*
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, James H. Moore, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Mines Management, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual report does 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 annual report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

a.

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; and

b.

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

a.

Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

1.

The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:

a.

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



/s/ James H. Moore

_____________________________

James H. Moore

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer



Date: June 14, 2005
## 2002 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

11-27-2002 

# Ask ey v . C omm P A D ept W el f a r e
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-1721

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2002 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Askey v . C omm P A D e pt W e l fa r e " (2002). 2002 D e cisio n s . P ape r 780. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002/780

## NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT



## No. 02-1721
JOHN W. ASKEY; BARBARA ASKEY, Appellants

v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT

OF PUBLIC WELFARE

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 01-cv-000640) District Judge: Honorable William L. Standish
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 21, 2002 Before: BARRY and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

DOWD*, District Judge (Opinion filed : November 27, 2002)

OPINION
*Honorable David D. Dowd, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

## 2

AMBRO, Circuit Judge The appellants, John and Barbara Askey, filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania this adversary proceeding against the appellee, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (“DPW”). The DPW filed a motion to dismiss, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from the lawsuit. The Bankruptcy Court granted the motion to dismiss on this ground, and the District Court affirmed. As those Courts recognized, this case is controlled by our decision in In re Sacred Heart Hosp. of Norristown , 133 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 1998), and so we also affirm. We further agree with the District Court’s conclusion that, because the Askeys did not attempt in the Bankruptcy Court to amend their complaint to sue for prospective injunctive relief from the Secretary of the DPW in his official capacity, they waived the Ex Parte Young , 209 U.S. 123 (1908), argument that they now seek to present. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of this adversary proceeding.

## 3

TO THE CLERK: Please file the foregoing Opinion.

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro Circuit Judge