alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Chas. Ramsey *v.*Nusom Pace et al.

Lis Pendens — Vendor’s Lien — Dismissal of Action.

The dismissal of an action to enforce a vendor’s lien, because of •want of prosecution, can not be regarded as a lis pendens, unless it contains facts affecting the rights of other parties, and in that event notice must be brought directly home to the party to be affected by it.

*362APPEAL PROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 12, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The allegations contained in both the original and amended petitions, if true, would not authorize a judgment against the appellee, Allison. The original petition contains 'statements from which might 'be implied the 'existence of a secret trust between James Pace and his brother, Nusom. Pace, by reason of the deed executed by James to Nusom, in December, 1853; but there is no- allegation of any notice of this trust on the part of Allison, who seems to have been a vendee of the land from the vendee of Nusom; and in the absence of such an allegation and proof he is an innocent purchaser and must hold it. The plain effect of the original petition, however, is to cancel the deed, because the conveyance was made by James to Nusom P'ace for the purpose of defrauding the former’s creditors. Conceding this to be so, neither James Pace nor his heirs, as has been settled by the repeated adjudication of this court, can disturb the conveyance. The amended petition changes the character of the complaint by alleging that although the original conveyance was fraudulent, Nusom Pace afterwards executed his note for four hundred dollars for the land, and for this, a lien is attempted to be asserted on that portion of it in the possession of the vendee, Allison.

The administrator of Pace, and perhaps others, had years since .attempted to enforce this lien for the purchase money, but the action was dismissed for the want of prosecution. Actions thus dismissed cannot be regarded as *lis pendens*unless they contain facts affecting the rights of third parties; and then notice must be brought directly home to the party to be affected by it. In such cases the notice would be as effective without it as with it. If these actions had never been dismissed, and Pace or his administrator was still asserting his lien, it could not affect the rights of Allison, for the reason, that no lien exists under our statute unless retained in the deed passing the title. In this case, there is no: notice alleged and certainly none proven, showing knowledge, on the part of Allison, of the execution of the recent trust, prior to his pur*363chase; and no lien exists for the purchase money, as the deed on its face acknowledges payment in full of the consideration.

*Scott, for appellant.*

*Lindsey, for appellees.*

Judgment affirmed.
11055.

#### Little *v.*Dolvin.

Decided May 5, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of Greensboro-—Judge Brown. October 3, 1919.

*Davison & Lewis,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. G. Faust,*contra.

Jenkins, P. J.

1. Ordinarily *the*burden of proof lies upon tlia plaintiff, who, alleging certain facts to exist, claims a right to recover against the defendant; but when in such a case the defendant comes in and by his plea admits the prima facie case as stated by the petition, and sets up matters in avoidance, then the defendant is the party who asserts the truth of the facts so set up, and the burden in such a case devolves on him to establish the facts so pleaded; failing to do which the plaintiff is, without more, entitled to the verdict. Where the defendant, by his' pleadings, has thus admitted a complete prima facie case,' and by so doing assumes the burden of proof, he is entitled to open and conclude the argument; and where such right is not waived in terms or by conduct, it is reversible error to deny it, except where the evidence is such as would demand a- verdict for the plaintiff.

2. Where the suit was for the purchase-price of a mule sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, and the defendant admitted the purchase at the price sued for, and set up the defense of payment, the fact that the defendant placed the date of purchase a short time prior to that alleged by the plaintiff did not impose upon the plaintiff any burden of showing by proof the subsequent date alleged by him, since, so far as the matter of interest goes, the admission would include the plaintiff’s entire contention.

*Judgment reversed,*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 230 (Monday, December 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 71095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28385]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, December 3, 2014, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

PLACE: CPSC's National Product Testing and Evaluation Center, 5 
Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered: Briefing Matter: Fiscal Year 2015 Operating 
Plan.
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/live.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: November 26, 2014.
Alberta E. Mills,
Acting Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-28385 Filed 11-26-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CRIMINAL NO. 05-00164-CG

)

TONY GRAY,

aka Tony Sigler,

aka Tony Curtis Gray,

)

)

)

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

For good cause shown and pursuant to the provisions of Fed.R. Cr.P. 36, 

governing the correction of clerical mistakes contained in a judgment in a criminal 

case, the court hereby AMENDS nunc pro tunc Sheet 2 of the judgment entered on 

March 25, 2015 (Doc. 40) as follows: 

“The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States 

Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total of SIX (6) MONTHS. The 

defendant is to be credited for time served in state custody since January 

21, 2015, on the six month sentence.”

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of April, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:05-cr-00164-CG-B Document 41 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 1
11202.

#### Holderness *v.*Hutcheson Manufacturing Co.

Jenkins, P. J.

1. Where a contract of purchase and sale is entire, the buyer may promptly rescind for a deficiency in the quantity of the commodity delivered; but where, on reporting a deficiency, he. does not elect to rescind, but on the contrary retains the goods and renders an account setting forth the quantity claimed to have been actually received, together with a statement of the payments theretofore made thereon at the contract price, and the balance due in accordance with the alleged deficiency, if the seller retains such payments under such notice, even though protesting against the reported shortage, ■ such conduct on the part of the purchaser and the seller amounts to a mutual waiver of the original terms to the extent of rendering binding and unconditional the sale of the undisputed items.

2. Where it appeared and was admitted that the purchaser proved to have been in error as to the shortage thus claimed and reported by him, and the judge properly submitted to the jury the issue between the parties as to whether at the time qf such erroneous report the remaining portion of the goods included by the terms of the original sale was withheld (as contended by the seller), or whether it remained the intention of the parties that the sale should include the actual and entire list of commodities, subject only to an adjustment of the dispute as to the quantity received and owed for, the seller denying that he had accepted payment for the disputed items, the purchaser contending that he had, it was error for the judge to charge the jury, in substance, that before the plaintiff in trover (who was the seller) *613could recover, he must show that he had restored or offered to restore the amounts thus received and accepted by him in payment on undisputed items of the sale.

Decided August 13, 1920.

Trover; from city court of Carrollton — Judge Beall. November 3, 1919.

*S. Holderness, Willis Smith, Buford Boykin, Watkins, Russell & Asbill,*for plaintiff.

*Lloyd Thomas, C. E. Roop,*for defendant.

3. The error in rejecting testimony as complained of in the 2d ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, was cured by the subsequent admission of the same evidence.

4. The assignment of error made by ground 17 of the motion for a new trial is without merit, since there was a disputed issue as to whether or not the holder had stored the cotton with the defendant with the right and privilege on the defendant’s part to work up and consume the same in its mill whenever it might desire, paying the seller the market price therefor on any date on which he should demand a settlement. If the cotton was stored with such a privilege on the defendant’s part, an action in trover would not lie therefor after the cotton had been «actually consumed under such authority.

5. The remaining grounds of the motion for a new trial are based on matters not likely to arise on another trial, and therefore are not dealt with.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1479 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1479

To establish the Chiricahua National Park in the State of Arizona as a 
       unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2023

Mr. Ciscomani introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish the Chiricahua National Park in the State of Arizona as a 
       unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Chiricahua National Park Act''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF CHIRICAHUA NATIONAL PARK, ARIZONA.

    (a) Designation.--
            (1) In general.--The Chiricahua National Monument in the 
        State of Arizona established by Presidential Proclamation 1692 
        (54 U.S.C. 320301 note; 43 Stat. 1946) shall be known and 
        designated as ``Chiricahua National Park'' (referred to in this 
        Act as the ``National Park'').
            (2) Boundaries.--The boundaries of the National Park shall 
        be the boundaries of the Chiricahua National Monument as of the 
        date of enactment of this Act, as generally depicted on the map 
        entitled ``Chiricahua National Park Proposed Boundary'', 
        numbered 145/156,356, and dated March 2021.
            (3) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
        document, or other record of the United States to the 
        Chiricahua National Monument shall be considered to be a 
        reference to the ``Chiricahua National Park''.
            (4) Availability of funds.--Any funds available for the 
        Chiricahua National Monument shall be available for the 
        National Park.
    (b) Administration.--The Secretary of the Interior shall administer 
the National Park in accordance with--
            (1) Presidential Proclamation 1692 (54 U.S.C. 320301 note; 
        43 Stat. 1946);
            (2) Presidential Proclamation 2288 (54 U.S.C. 320301 note; 
        52 Stat. 1551); and
            (3) the laws generally applicable to units of the National 
        Park System, including--
                    (A) section 100101(a), chapter 1003, and sections 
                100751(a), 100752, 100753, and 102101 of title 54, 
                United States Code; and
                    (B) chapter 3201 of title 54, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1832

TERRY HARRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

POWHATAN BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POWHATAN COUNTY, VIRGINIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:20-cv-00794-JAG)

Submitted: March 9, 2022 Decided: May 12, 2022

Before DIAZ and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Barbara Queen, LAWRENCEQUEEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. 

Melissa Y. York, Jeremy D. Capps, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry Harris, who was previously employed by the County of Powhatan, Virginia, 

appeals the district court’s order granting the Powhatan Board of Supervisors summary 

judgment on Harris’ claims of discrimination on the basis of race, in violation of Title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; age, in violation of the 

Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634; and disability, in 

violation of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. See Harris v. Powhatan Bd. of Supervisors, No. 3:20-cv-00794-

JAG (W.D.N.C. June 29, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1

        CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT
                                 TO SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Black Warrior Wireline Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
William L. Jenkins, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ William L. Jenkins
----------------------
William L. Jenkins
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 19, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL WILLIAMS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00774-WS-B

TONY PATTERSON, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file

deemed relevant to the issue raised, and there having been no

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion

of this court. It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the

Court's Order.

DONE this 28th day of April, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00774-WS-B Document 14 Filed 04/28/10 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT**

**TO      18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**BioLok      International Inc.**

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

| b) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all  material                respects, the financial condition and results of  operations                of the Registrant as of the dates and the periods  expressed                in the Report. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **Bio-Lok                  International Inc.**                                                       |                                                 |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                  |                                                 |   |
|   |                                                                                                  | /s/ Ingo                K.                Kozak |   |
|   | Ingo                  K. KozakChief                  Financial OfficerMarch                  15, 2006 |                                                 |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4731 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4731

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                        National Estuary Program.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

    Section 320(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY A. ODOM, SR., et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs / Counter-Defendants, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 09-0147-WS-N

 )

SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER, LLC, )

 )

Defendant / Counter-Plaintiff. )

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Orders entered on this date and on December 9, 2009, ruling on

the parties’ multiple motions for summary judgment, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed as

follows:

1. Judgment is entered in favor of the defendant as to Count Two of its

Counterclaim. Pursuant to Alabama Code § 35-4-153, the Grant of Easement

executed by the plaintiffs on or about December 28, 2007 is reformed and

revised on the ground of mutual mistake of the parties to provide that the rightof-way granted to SESH is defined as the 50-foot strip of land immediately

contiguous to the southern boundary line of the Gateway Easement, without

regard to the position of the pipeline within that strip.

2. All other claims and causes of action brought by the parties herein are dismissed

with prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of April, 2010.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00147-WS-N Document 90 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

2:00 p.m., Thursday, December 18, 2014.

# PLACE:

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                        The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:                         *Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *Small Mine Development,*                         Docket Nos. WEST 2011-1351-M, et al. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in concluding that a refuge must be installed during exploration or development of an ore body when the operator decides not to construct a second escapeway.)                    

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Sarah L. Stewart,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2014-28988 Filed 12-5-14; 3:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P