alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Phillip Schwenck et al. *v.*Zacharia T. Whipple et al.

Parent and Child — Improvements Made on Step-Child’s Property.

A step-father who lived in property with his step-child and its mother, can not recover for improvements made and taxes paid on the property by him, where the use of the property by him- constitutes a sufficient repayment therefor, and the step-father and the mother were entitled to one-third of it during their life, and the other two-thirds belong to the step-child.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

March 23, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

At the death of Dicklemann, the father of appellee, Mary, much the larger portion of the purchase price of the lot was unpaid. P. Schwenck has since paid *it;*he has filled up the sink in the lot and made it dry where water stood on it, and has erected buildings on it whereby its annual, as well as its permanent value is greatly enhanced. The testimony tends to show that he loaned to' Dickle-mann a part, if not all the money with which' he built the cottage on the lot, and after he married the widow, which he did within six or eight months after the death of Dicklemann, appellee, Mary, who was then of very tender years, not over three years old, was taken and cared for by her mother and stepfather, and was sent to school, her father leaving nothing but the lot, and not more than *603fifty dollars paid on it. It is true after appellee, Mary, arrived at the age of ten or. twelve years, her services were perhaps worth more than her support, nor would appellants be entitled to pay for her maintenance prior to that time; but her stepfather seems to have treated her as his own child; and when she separated from her first husband, she, with her child, was taken home and supported until she married a second time.

Mwndy, *for appellants.*

Booth, *for appellees.*

As to the claim of appellants for reimbursements for money expended in improvements, these improvements were made voluntarily, under no contract with the heir, who was incapable of contracting, and they were made partly for appellants’ own benefit, they being entitled to one-third of it during the life of Mrs. Schwenck; and they were, at least to some extent, remunerated by the enhanced value of the rents. If they insist on the strict enforcement of the statute that the widow shall have a right to remain in the mansion house and curtilage until dower is assigned her, and that too against her daughter, who was of too tender years to comprehend her rights, and for whom she was the natural guardian, and if while enjoying the benefit of the whole estate, under the strict and literal construction of the statute, they pay out money for taxes and other necessary expenditures, the court will not help them to recover them back. They have, in fact, been repaid by the use of the property. Under all the circumstances of this case, the rights of the parties are adjusted on proper principles by the chancellor, and the judgment is therefore affirmed on the original and on the cross-appeal.
10810.

#### Grant *v.*The State.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Evans superior court—Judge Evans. June 7, 1919.

*P. M.*Anderson, for plaintiff in error.

*J. Saxton Daniel, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. “The overruling of a demurrer to an indictment can *not*properly be made a ground of a motion for a new trial.” *Veal*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*589 (42 S. E. 705) ; *Brown*v. *Wilkes,*20 *Ga. App.*92 (92 S. E. 553), and cases cited.

2. Under*tlie qualifying note of the trial judge there is no merit in the fifth ground of the motion for a new trial.

3. The court did not err in charging the jury on voluntary manslaughter.

4. The evidence suqiports the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., coneur.*
EXHIBIT 32.1NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.CERTIFICATIONIn connection with the periodic report of Novellus Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),I, Richard S. Hill, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 ofthe United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for theperiods indicated.This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.              Dated: August 7, 2007 By: /s/ Richard S. Hill             Richard S. Hill      Chairman of the Board of Directors      and Chief Executive Officer      (Principal Executive Officer)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GRACE BAEK; RICHARD BAEK;

BAEK 153, LLC; PACIFIC

COMMERCIAL GROUP, LLC, 

Appellants,

 v.

JOHN OLAF HALVORSON; WENETA

M.A. KOSMALA, Chapter 7 Trustee;

DAN HALVORSON; JERRY ANN

RANDALL, 

Appellees.

No. 19-55816

D.C. No. 8:18-cv-00143-JVS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2020** 

Pasadena, California

Before: FERNANDEZ, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

FILED

DEC 3 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Grace Baek, Richard Baek, Baek 153, LLC, and Pacific Commercial Group,

LLC (collectively, “the Baeks”) appeal the district court’s order affirming the

bankruptcy court’s order denying the Baeks’ motion to recuse the bankruptcy

judge in the main bankruptcy proceeding. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of the Baeks’ motion to recuse the

bankruptcy judge. Denial of a motion to recuse is not a final order. See Stewart

Enters., Inc. v. Horton (In re Horton), 621 F.2d 968, 970 (9th Cir. 1980); United

States v. Washington, 573 F.2d 1121, 1122 (9th Cir. 1978). The pragmatic

approach to finality in bankruptcy appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) does not

change this conclusion. See Eden Place, LLC v. Perl (In re Perl), 811 F.3d 1120,

1126–27 (9th Cir. 2016); SS Farms, LLC v. Sharp (In re SK Foods, L.P.), 676 F.3d

798, 802 (9th Cir. 2012). A bankruptcy court order is final under § 158(d)(1) when

it “1) resolves and seriously affects substantive rights and 2) finally determines the

discrete issue to which it is addressed.” Gugliuzza v. FTC (In re Gugliuzza), 852

F.3d 884, 894 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). The order

denying the Baeks’ motion to recuse is not final; it merely preserves the status quo. 

The bankruptcy judge’s actions “may be reviewed throughout the bankruptcy

proceedings” and may be revisited later should additional grounds for recusal

become apparent. SK Foods, 676 F.3d at 802; see also Liteky v. United States, 510

2
U.S. 540, 543, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1151, 127 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1994).1

 

DISMISSED.

1

 The fact that the Baeks chose to file their recusal motion in the main

bankruptcy proceeding rather than in the bankruptcy adversary proceedings where

the alleged bases for recusal arose does not affect our conclusion.

3
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(c)

                       CONSENT OF BARRY G. SKOLNICK, ESQ.

I hereby consent to the reference to my name under the caption "Legal Matters"
in the Prospectus included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to the Registration
Statement on Form N-4 for certain variable annuity insurance contracts issued
through Merrill Lynch Life Variable Annuity Separate Account A of Merrill Lynch
Life Insurance Company, File No. 333-118362.



                                   By:       /s/  Barry G. Skolnick
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                                  Barry G. Skolnick, Esq.
                                      Senior Vice President and General Counsel



December 2, 2005
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 31 04

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ In re: Ch el se a Ann Co nwa y
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Deb to r

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Ch el se a Ann Co nwa y
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Nati on al Co ll eg ia te Trus t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

Fi rs t M arb le he ad Co rp ., Inc

. ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s B an kr

up tc y App el la te Pan el for th e Eig ht h C irc ui t

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Ju ne 4, 2 01 4 Fil ed : J un e 9 , 20 14 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __Befo re GRUENDER, BOW MAN, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Nati on al Co ll eg ia te Trus t (NCT) ap pe al s fro m th e jud gm en t of th e Ban kr up tc y App el la te Pan el (BAP) rev ers in g th e Ban kr up tc y Co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at de bt or Ch el se a Co nwa y ha d reas on ab ly rel ia bl e fu tu re fin an ci al res ou rces wit h whi ch to pa y he r en ti re st ud en t lo an de bt to NTC. Rev ie win g th e Ban kr up tc y Co ur t’s fin di ng of fact s fo r cl ear erro r an d it s co nc lu si on of la w de no vo , th e BAP de te rm in ed th at

e x c ep ti ng fro m di sc ha rg e al l of Co nwa y ’s ob li ga ti on s to NTC wou ld imp o s e a n

“ un du e ha rd sh ip ” un de r 11 U.S.C. § 52 3( a)(8 ). Bu t th e BAP rem an de d fo r a se pa rat e

“ un du e ha rd sh ip ” di sc ha rg e an al y si s of each of Co nwa y ’s fif te en in di vi du al de bt s to NCT. W e ha ve in de pe nd en tl y rev ie wed th e Ban kr up tc y Co ur t’s d eci si on , app lying th e sa m e st an da rd of rev ie w as th e BAP. See W al ke r v. Sall ie Mae Serv ic in g Cor p. (In re W al ke r), 65 0 F.3 d 12 27 , 12 30 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). W e affi rm f o r t h e reas on s st at ed by th e BAP. See Co nwa y v. Nat’l Co ll eg ia te Trus t ( I n r e Co nwa y ), 49 5 B.R. 41 6 (B.A.P. 8t h C i r. 20 13 ). In ad di ti on , co nt rary to NCT’s arg um en ts on ap pe al , we fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e BAP’s d eci si on to reac h th e m eri ts of th e Ban kr up tc y Co ur t’s de ci si on de sp it e im m at eri al de fic ie nc ie s in th e
reco rd on ap pe al , se e W il so n v. W el ls Farg o Ban k, N.A. (In re W il so n) , 40 2 B.R. 66 , 69 –7 0 (B.A.P. 1s t Ci r. 20 09 ), no co nt rav en ti on of co ng res si on al in te nt wit h reg ard to th e di sc ha rg e an al y si s, an d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e de ci si on to r e m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002****(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. (the“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officerof the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that, to the best of his knowledge and belief:

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

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

|                                                                                                                                               |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS  **Douglas P. Williams****Chief Financial Officer****November****13****, 2002**   
 
57 |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.A

                           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 on Form 10-K/A for the period ending
December 31, 2002, of ANR Pipeline Company (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John W.
Somerhalder II, Chairman of the Board (Principal Executive Officer), certify (i)
that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                              /s/ JOHN W. SOMERHALDER II
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                  John W. Somerhalder II
                                                  Chairman of the Board
                                              (Principal Executive Officer)

                                          June 20, 2003

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to ANR Pipeline Company and will be retained by ANR Pipeline
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
sec document




                                                                    Exhibit 10.3

                            RELEASE AND CANCELLATION

Release ("Release") executed on this 21st day of November, 2005, DEL Exploration
Corporation,  a body duly incorporated under the laws of the Province of British
Columbia, Canada, and having an office at 455 - 5525 West Boulevard,  Vancouver,
BC, V6M 3W6,  herein  referred  to as "DEL",  individually  and on behalf of its
officers,   directors,   employees,   agents,   representatives,   predecessors,
successors and assigns and affiliates of each of them (collectively and together
with DEL the  "Releasors"),  in favor of  Darwin  Resources  Corp.("Darwin"),  a
Nevada  corporation,  having an office at 455 - 5525 West Boulevard,  Vancouver,
BC, V6M 3W6,  (Darwin and  together  with its  officers,  directors,  employees,
agents, representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns, the "Releasees").

In consideration of the payment to Releasor by Releasee on the execution of this
Release  of the sum of Ten  Dollars  ($10.00),  the  receipt  of which is hereby
acknowledged, Releasors release and forever discharge Releasees from any and all
actions, causes of action, damages, judgments, liabilities, obligations, claims,
debts,  agreements,  demands,  judgments and executions of every kind and nature
whatsoever,   including,   without   limitation,   claims  for   indemnity   and
contribution,  known or unknown claims,  fixed or contingent claims, and matured
or unmatured claims,  in law or in equity,  which any of the Releasors ever had,
now have,  hereafter can, shall or may have against any and all of the Releasees
from the  beginning  of time,  including  but not limited to any and all claims,
demands  and  causes  of  action  that  Releasors  may now  have  or that  might
subsequently  accrue to Releasors arising out of or connected with,  directly or
indirectly,  that certain that certain  Property Option Agreement dated February
3, 2005 and amendments thereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, DEL executes this Release at Vancouver, B.C., on the day and
year first above written.


DEL EXPLORATION CORP

By: /s/ Robert Ferguson
    ---------------------------------
    Robert Ferguson, director
CERTIFICATIONS

Exhibit 31.1



I, Gregory F. Kowal, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;



2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4.  The Company's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



c)

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.  The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls; and



6.  The Company's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date:  September 14, 2007



/s/Gregory F. Kowal

Gregory F. Kowal

Chief Executive Officer
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-17-00326-CR

____________________

EX PARTE BILLY WAYNE BARTON

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 258th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 24667

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On September 11, 2017, we notified the parties that the appeal would be 

dismissed for want of prosecution unless arrangements were made for filing the 

record or the appellant explained why he needed more time for filing the record. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). The appellant did not file a response. It appears that the 

appellant is not entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 

20.2. There being no satisfactory explanation for the failure to file the record, the 

appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

APPEAL DISMISSED.
2

 ________________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on October 17, 2017

Opinion Delivered October 18, 2017

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSEPH OLINSKY, III,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 174 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4534 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red 176. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 9, 2004 

Mr. LANGEVIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red 176. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PIGMENT RED 176. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.34.54 Pigment Red 176 (CAS No. 

12225–06–8) (provided for 

in subheading 3204.17.04) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2006 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 
2 

•HR 4534 IH 

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
**Exhibit 11.1**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          24,979
<SECURITIES>                                   193,949
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,344)
<INVENTORY>                                     10,648
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               287,937
<PP&E>                                          14,604
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,380)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 317,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,430
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           650
<OTHER-SE>                                     261,476
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   317,556
<SALES>                                         19,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,997
<CGS>                                           16,969
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   572
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,597
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,039
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,558
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,558
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30


</TABLE>