alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Susan B. Hambrick *v.*Wm. I. Gowan et al.

Husband and Wife — Property of Wife — Possession.

Where a husband had possession of his wife’s money, either as a loan or for the purpose of paying it on the purchase-price of land ■bought by him, and it was used in partnership business in which the husband was interested, and the wife’s conduct was free from fraud, and she got possession of the money by as meritorious means as did the partnership, a court of equity will not disturb her possession thereof.

APPEAL FROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

March 26, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

It clearly appears from the evidence that appellant had, by devise from, her father, a small piece of land, which in May, 1867, she sold to her brother for $1,700, one-third down, one-third paid in the spring of 1868, and the last payment was due in May, 1869, *622but as Gabe proves, was paid to her in December, 1869. That was after the partnership was formed between her husband and Gowan, and while it was in existence, for it did not close till the fall of 1870, when Hambrick sold the cattle in Paris and absconded; appellant says she handed the money to her husband to pay to her vendor on the land; appellee, Gowan, proves by the witness, Hammond, that she said she loaned the money h> her husband. Gowan introduced the witness to prove appellant’s statements about how she got the $600 for which she was sued; and in the same conversation the witness proves she stated' that she had loaned her husband the money.

*Scott, for appellant.*

*Harwood,'for appellees.*

When he borrowed it, giving that version to the transaction, he of course promised to return it, and it was not an appropriation of his wife’s money to his own use; and from the correspondence in dates, the fact that Gowan and Hambrick were buying and speculating in cattle at the time, and were partners, it is reasonable and most probable that appellant’s money was used by the firm, and in its business. It cannot be doubted from the evidence that either she loaned her husband the money, or that she placed it in his hands to pay for her land; in either case she would be regarded as his creditor in equity, entitled to remuneration, and to all the rights and privileges of other creditors.

Section 1373, Story’s Equity Jurisprudence. So where the wife charges her separate estate for her husband’s use, intending it as a loan, and not as a gift, she will be considered as a creditor, and will be supplied with all the means of enforcing the demand against her husband’s estate that any other creditor would possess. ' Chancey on Husband and Wife, p. 590. Mrs. Hambrick either parted with her money on a promise that it should be refunded to her, or that it should be paid to the vendor of her land to secure it to her; it was used during the existence of the partnership, and as the circumstances indicate strongly, in its business. Her conduct has been free from fraud, and having gotten her money with a claim as meritorious as appellees’, a court of equity has no. lawful authority to disturb her.

Wherefore the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the petition as to appellant.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TRANSMONTAIGNE PRODUCT ) 

SERVICES, INC., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) Civil Action No. 09-0023-CG-B 

 ) 

M/V WILBUR R. CLARK, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

 This matter is before the court on the motions for default judgment against Hannah 

Maritime Corporation filed by Harrison Brothers Dry Dock & Repair Yard, Inc. (Doc. 271), and 

by Whistler Machine Works, Inc. (Doc. 272). 

 Upon due consideration the motions are hereby GRANTED. 

 It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that default judgment is 

GRANTED in favor of Harrison Brothers Dry Dock & Repair Yard, Inc. against Hannah 

Maritime Corporation in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND FOUR 

HUNDRED TWENTY-NINE and 00/100 DOLLARS ($131,429.00), plus pre-judgment interest 

of 1.5% per month from January 1, 2009 through the date of this judgment, including attorney 

fees. Harrison Brothers Dry Dock & Repair Yard, Inc. is also awarded applicable post judgment 

interest at the rate of 0.33% pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1961. 

 It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that default judgment is 

GRANTED in favor of Whistler Machine Works, Inc. against Hannah Maritime Corporation in 

the amount of SIXTY-NINE THOUSAND EIGHTY ONE and 85/100 DOLLARS ($69,081.85), 

plus pre-judgment interest of 1.5% per month from May 31, 2008 through the date of this 

Case 1:09-cv-00023-CG-B Document 273 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 2
judgment, and attorney fees. Whistler Machine Works, Inc. is also awarded applicable post 

judgment interest at the rate of 0.33% pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 

 Counsel for said defendants is directed to file a detailed specification and itemization of 

the requested award for attorney’s fees, with appropriate affidavits and other supporting 

documentation pursuant to Local Rule 54.3 no later than July 1, 2010. 

 Costs are to be taxed against Hannah Marine Corporation.1 

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of June, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

1 Counsel shall file a bill of costs in compliance with Local Rules 54.1. 

Case 1:09-cv-00023-CG-B Document 273 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00503-CV

John Rady, Appellant

v.

Federal National Mortgage Association, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-12-004633, HONORABLE J. DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On May 22, 2013, the Clerk of this Court sent notice to appellant John Rady that his

brief was due on May 13, 2013, and was overdue, and that if he failed to file a brief, this Court

would dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution. The Clerk also notified Rady that his appeal

would be dismissed for want of prosecution if he did not respond to this Court by June 3, 2013. To

date, Rady has not responded to this Court’s notice and has not filed a brief. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: June 26, 2013
Dismiss and Opinion Filed February 25, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00209-CV

IN RE KENNETH HALL, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-52103-SPM

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O'Neill, Lang, and Brown 

Opinion by Justice Lang

Before the Court is relator’s post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus 

complaining that he was convicted based on evidence obtained from an unlawful arrest and from 

an unconstitutional search and seizure and that he was denied assistance of counsel. The facts 

and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. This Court lacks 

jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2010); In re Hampton, No. 05-07-00440-CV, 2007 WL 

1168446 at *1 (Tex. App.–Dallas Apr. 20, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we 

DISMISS the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

140209F.P05

/Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS LANG

JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

 

I,James E. Hohmann, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure 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 andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

5.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| August 6,  2007 |                                   |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------|
|            |                                   |
|            | /s/ James E.  Hohmann                  |   |
|            | James E.  Hohmann                      |
|            | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

E-3

----
= ‘on NIST CSF 2.0

Date: Thursday, May 4, 2023 8:04:41 AM
Attachments: image001.pnq
Good day,

| would like to submit feedback to the CSF2.0 draft.

Coming from an organization, where a failure of a system can have cascading effects on other
systems, it is my impression that more focus is needed on educating plant/system/vessel operators
(in out case, the ship crew) about cascading failures. On a ship, there are many interconnected
systems, and e.g. the power generation and distribution depends heavily on a number of these
systems. The CSF points to response and recovery plans, but | do not see it mention the need to
educate the creators of response plans and the operators of the plants on the cascading effects a
system failure may have down the line, and that should be accounted for in response plans.

In IT, this is commonly understood, as if a database server fails, the application server fails to start;
but in OT, the consequences may be more hidden and should be a topic of great concern to e.g. ship
operators.

If this has already been addressed in the draft, | might have missed it.

Thank you,

Best regards,

Christopher Stein
Lead Engineer, Maritime Cybersecurity
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7257

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

WILLIE EDWARD JOHNSON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District 

Judge. (2:04-cr-00110-JBF-JEB) 

Submitted: January 29, 2009 Decided: February 12, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Willie Edward Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Willie Edward Johnson appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2)(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Johnson, No. 2:04-cr00110-JBF-JEB (E.D. Va. June 24, 2008). 

 We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

 

 AFFIRMED
1

The Development of Numerical 

Criteria for the Identification 

of Striated Toolmarks by 

Empirical Testing

by 

Al Biasotti and John Murdock

NIST/OLES Conference - July 10 & 11, 2012

“Measurement Science and Standards 

in Forensic Firearms Analysis”
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
11431.

#### Rawleigh Company *v.*Collins *et al.*

Decided July 14, 1920.

Complaint;' from city court of Cairo—Judge Rigsby. December 31, 1919.

*M. L. Ledford, John R. Wilson, Handley C. Harrison,*for plaintiff.

*Bell & Weathers, R. A. Bell,*for defendants.

Broyles, C. J.

Under tlie facts of the ease, as disclosed by the record, the court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants, or in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth, J., concurs. Luke, J., dissents.*

Luke, J.,

dissenting. I think there was evidence sufficient to let the ease go to the jury.
- Page 1 - front-page
- Page 2 - front-page
- Page 3 - description
- Page 4 - description
- Page 5 - description
- Page 6 - description
- Page 7 - description
- Page 8 - description
- Page 9 - description
- Page 10 - description
- Page 11 - description
- Page 12 - description
- Page 13 - description
- Page 14 - description
- Page 15 - description
- Page 16 - description
- Page 17 - claims
- Page 18 - claims
- Page 19 - drawings
- Page 20 - drawings
- Page 21 - drawings
- Page 22 - drawings
- Page 23 - drawings
- Page 24 - drawings
- Page 25 - drawings
- Page 26 - wo-search-report
**Exhibit        10(e)(7)**

**AMENDMENT        NO. 6 TO THE**

**ALLTEL        CORPORATION**

**EXECUTIVE        DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN**

|   | "12. | Adoption                  of Sub-Plan.                  Effective as of December 8, 2005 (the "Effective Date"), the Corporation                  hereby establishes the Executive Deferred Compensation Sub-Plan                  (the                  "Sub-Plan"). The Sub-Plan shall be governed by the same terms and                  conditions as the Plan, except as otherwise provided                  below: |
|--------|------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**ALLTEL        CORPORATION **

----
|   | (1) | the      Quarterly Report of Willamette Valley Vineyards, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the      quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act      of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | information      contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the      financial condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley      Vineyards, Inc. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:         | /s/      Jeffrey J. Fox |
|-------------|-------------------------|
| Name:  | Jeffrey      J. Fox     |
| Title:      | Controller              |

----
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS  UNAUDITED SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM
THE FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR SECURED INVESTMENT RESOURCES FUND, L.P. III AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000839638
<NAME> SECURED INVESTMENT RESOURCES FUND, L.P. III
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S> <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                     MARCH-31-2000
<CASH>                                                 451,000
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           47,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                           (47,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             0
<PP&E>                                              11,272,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       4,470,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       7,490,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        0
<BONDS>                                              7,876,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         7,490,000
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       521,000
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          522,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     178,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                             3,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                              .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 31, 1997
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         896,964
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  527,711
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,424,675
<PP&E>                                      16,481,361
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,066,754
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,839,282
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,839,282
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,839,282
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               452,207
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  250,729
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                207,473
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   207,473
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 4, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00060

- CV

IN RE ALLSTATE VEHIC LE AND PROPERTY INSU RANCE COMPANY

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

On February 2, 2018, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The real party in interest and respondent declined to file a response. After reviewing the petition, we conclude relator is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, the writ of mandamus is CONDITIONALLY

GRANTED. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(c).

The Honorable Davi d J. Rodriguez is ORDERED to, within fifteen days, amend in a manner consistent with this court’s opinion his ruling in decretal paragraphs 2A and 13A of the January 19, 2018 “Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.” The writ of mandamus will issue only

if we are notified that Judge Rodriguez has not complied within fifteen days from the date of this

order.

It is so ORDERED on April 4, 2018

.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of April, 2018

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017CV04875, styled Brian A. Jones v. Allstate Insurance Company

, pending in the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David J. Rodriguez presiding.