alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John S. Harris *v.*H. M. Coombs.

Partnership — Presumption As to Ownership.

Where a deed to one vests him with legal title, he is presumptively the owner of the land, and although paid for out of partnership funds, a trust did not result in favor of the other partner.

Partnership — Evidence—Statements and Admissions.

Where a partner purchased land with partnership funds and took title in his own name, and openly asserted claim thereto, and the other partner openly acquiesced therein, the recollection of witnesses as to statements or admissions made by him concerning the land having been purchased and held for -the partnership cannot be allowed to prevail.

APPEAL FROM BREATHITT CIRCUIT COURT.

June 19, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The conveyance from John Hargis to the appellant, John S. Har-gis, for the three and three-fourths acres of land in controversy was executed on the 26th of March, 1855, and recorded in the clerk’s office of the county in which the Land is situated, and in which *16Bohannon & Hargis were doing business, on the 6th day of April, 1855.

*James, for appellmt.*

-, *for appellee.*

It may be possible, and it is likely that the land was paid for out of the partnership funds, but it is not proved that appellant took the deed in his own name without the consent of Bohannon nor in violation of any trust. Consequently, as the deed invested him with the legal title, he is presumptively the owner of the land, and under our statutes a trust did not result in favor of Bohannon, even though funds in which he held an interest were used by appellant in paying for it. Secs. 20 and 22, Chapter 80, Revised Statutes.

The facts that appellant put the deed to record at once, and that Bohannon permitted him to hold the title for many years without question so far as appears in this case, rebuts all idea to show that Bohannon as long as he remained in Kentucky recognized appellant as the sole owner of the land.

Armed as appellant is with the muniments of title, and the presumptions arising from his openly asserted claim, and the apparent acquiescence of Bohannon, through whom this appellee claims, the recollection of witnesses as to statements or admissions made by him as to the land having been purchased and held for the partnership, ought not to have been allowed to prevail. Appellee’s petition as to the tract in question should have been dismissed. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for proceedings conformable to this opinion.
Affiliate Members

October 2023

AFFILIATES

Donald Bloom

Casey Gould

Lauri McGivern

Raymond Miller

Lindsey Thomas

Nessa Vercillo

Margaret Warner

Amanda Wright
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 50374

CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY , Plaintiff

- Appell ee , v.
WHITE STONE PROPERTIES LTD

. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1 : 12

- CV

- 275

Before DENNIS , PRADO , an d HIGGINSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM : * Following a bench trial, White Stone Properties Ltd. (“White Stone”) appeals from a final judgment entered by the district court, holding that Central Mutual Insurance Company (“Central Mutual”) owed no further payment to its insured, White Stone , under the terms of a replacement

- cost coverage provision of an insurance policy (“the Policy”) . White Stone also appeals from the district court ’s holding that White Stone “take nothing” on its
counter claims against Central Mutual for (1) a declaratory judgment that Central Mutual owes payments to White Stone pursuant to the Policy; (2)

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 10, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-50374 Document: 00512963802 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2015No. 14

- 50374 breach of contract; (3) breach of the common law duty of goo d faith and fair dealing; and (4) violations of the Texas Insurance Code. A careful review of the record in this case, a full consideration of the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, and a thorough analysis of the district court’s articulate ruling lead

u s to conclude that the district court’s judgment was correct. Because the
district court opinion ’s careful analysis thoroughly explains its sound reasons and judgment , we need not engage in a redundant analysis simply to reach the same result. We therefo re AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for essentially the same reasons assigned by the district court.

2 Case: 14-50374 Document: 00512963802 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2015
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D 20 2 3

- 1861 Lower Tribunal No. 22

- CF

- 014094

_____________________________
C LIFTON L EMANZ S EAWRIGHT , Appellant
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County

. Bruce Kyle , Judge.

August 27, 2024

PER CURIAM

.

AFFIRMED

.

TRAVER
, C

. J. , and NARDELLA and WHITE , JJ., c oncur.

Howard L. “Rex: Dimmig , II, Public Defender, and Rachel Paige Roebuck, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4811

For the relief of Saikou A. Diallo. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2004

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Saikou A. Diallo.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SAIKOU A. 

4 DIALLO. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Saikou A. Diallo shall be eligible for issuance of an 

8 immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 

9 alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon fil10 ing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 

11 section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to 

12 lawful permanent resident. 
2

•HR 4811 IH 

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Saikou A. Diallo 

2 enters the United States before the filing deadline speci3 fied in subsection (c), he shall be considered to have en4 tered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, 

5 be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of 

6 the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 

7 enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Saikou A. Diallo, the Secretary of State shall 

16 instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the cur17 rent or fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas 

18 that are made available to natives of the country of the 

19 alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 

20 Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immi21 grant visas that are made available to natives of the coun22 try of the alien’s birth under section 202(e) of such Act. 

23 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

24 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

25 parents, brothers, and sisters of Saikou A. Diallo shall 
3

•HR 4811 IH 

1 not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, 

2 privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality 

3 Act.

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAGED HASHEM ABDULLAH AL QADASI, Petitioner,

v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER , Acting Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 72502 Agency No. A200

- 268

- 293

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 27, 2018 **
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Maged Hashem Abdullah Al Qadasi , a native and citizen of Yemen, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Conv ention

* 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). 

# FILED

DEC 3 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 72502

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006), and w e deny the petition for review.

Substantial e vidence supports the agency’s finding that the harm Al Qadasi suffered in Yemen did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nahrvani v.

Gonzales , 399 F.3d 1148, 115 3

- 5 4 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner’s past ha rm constituted persecution) ; Lim v. INS , 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (persecution is an “extreme concept” that includes the “infliction of suffering or harm”)

. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Al Qad asi did not establish a well

- founded fear of future

perse cution in Yemen on account of his political opinion or other protected ground

. S ee Hakeem v. INS , 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[a]n applicant’ s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly

- situated family members continue to live in the country without incident”)

. Thus, his asylum claim fails.
In this case, b ecause Al Qadasi failed to establish eligibility for asylum , he

failed to demonstrate eligibility for wi thholding of removal. See Zehatye , 453 F.3d

at 1190

.3 15

- 72502

S ubstantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Al Qadasi’s CAT claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Yemen. See

Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009). Finally, w e reject Al Qadasi’s contention s th at the IJ did not consider all of his evidence or that the BIA failed to address legal errors.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.
Order filed September 28, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00520-CV

IN RE RYAN ZIMMERMAN, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

309th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-62926

ORDER

On September 15, 2021, relator Ryan Zimmerman filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Linda 

Dunson, presiding judge of the 309th District Court of Harris County, to set aside

its June 24, 2021, order holding relator in contempt for possession and access 

violations and failure to pay child support.
2

Relator’s appendix to his petition for writ of mandamus contains multiple 

documents with unredacted sensitive information of relator’s minor children. See

Tex. R. App. P. 9.9(a)(3). Parties are required to redact all sensitive information in 

documents filed in this court unless the inclusion of the sensitive data is 

specifically required by a statute, court rule, or administrative regulation. Id. 

9.9(b). There is no statute, court rule, or administrative regulation requiring the 

inclusion of sensitive data.

Accordingly, we ORDER relator to redact all sensitive information from the 

documents included with his appendix to the petition and refile them in this court 

on or before October 1, 2021. Relator’s failure to comply with this order will 

result in the denial of relator’s petition. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         347,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,829,200
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,250,300)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,606,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,606,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               689,300
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  161,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               183,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                344,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   344,300
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.18


</TABLE>
Exhibit 12.2
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, Tasuku Kondo, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Mitsui & Co., Ltd.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company andhave:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared;  (b) [omitted pursuant to the guidance of SEC Release No. 33-8238]  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: September 30, 2004     By /s/ Tasuku Kondo                                                                                                                Name:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7048

GENERIA SCOTT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA98-1860-PJM) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 29, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Generia Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Generia Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Scott v. Bashears , No. CA-98-1860-PJM (D. Md. June 19, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person
whose signature appears below hereby constitutes and appoints Edward A. Mueller, Joseph J. Euteneuer and Stephen E. Brilz, or any one of them, as his or her attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him or her in any and all
capacities, hereby giving and granting to said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully, to all intents and
purposes, as he or she might or could do if personally present at the doing thereof, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent may or shall lawfully do, or cause to be done, in connection with the proposed filing by
Qwest Corporation, a Colorado corporation, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of an annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010,
including but not limited to, such full power and authority to do the following: (i) execute and file such annual report; (ii) execute and file any amendment or amendments thereto; (iii) receive and respond to comments from the
Securities and Exchange Commission related in any way to such annual report or any amendment or amendments thereto; and (iv) execute and deliver any and all certificates, instruments or other documents related to the matters enumerated above,
as the attorney-in-fact in his sole discretion deems appropriate.

This power of attorney has been duly
executed below by the following persons as of the 21stday
of February, 2011.



|                                           |  |                                         
|------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------
|                                           | 
|/S/    EDWARD A.
MUELLER Edward A. Mueller |  | /s/    TERESA A.
TAYLOR Teresa A. Taylor
EXHIBIT 32.2

                               TELVUE CORPORATION


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of TelVue Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Fell, Controller
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Date:  05/15/09                         /s/ John Fell
                                        -------------
                                        John Fell
                                        Treasurer (Controller)
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

I, Jeffrey J. Fox,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of WillametteValley Vineyards, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc.

 
| Date: May 28, 2008                                    |                                                          |
|------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:                                                        |        /s/  Jeffrey J. Fox |   |
| Name:  Jeffery  J. Fox                           |                                                          |
| Title:       Controller |                                                          |
|                                                            |                                                               |  |
* The court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10989 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DANA WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(4:96-CR-25-Y)
- - - - - - - - - - April 29, 1997 Before Wisdom, King, and Smith, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant Dana Marie White appeals the sentence imposed for her conviction for making available a place for manufacturing, storing, and distributing cocaine and cocaine base. She argues that the court clearly erred in determining the quantity of drugs attributable to her and that the court erred in refusing to apply U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8(a)(2) in determining her base offense level. WeNo. 96-10989 - 2 - have reviewed the briefs and the record and conclude that there is
no error. AFFIRMED.