alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John A. Stiff, et al., *v.*F. M. Stiff, et al.

Guardian and Ward — Bondsmen’s Liability.

The sureties, in eacb bond -where a guardian is under two separate bonds, are liable to tbe ward’for any money wbicb came to the hands of their principal, whether received before or after the date of the bond upon which they are sureties.

*632APPEAL, FROM BRECKENRIDGE CIRCUIT COURT.

March 14, 1876.

7. *G. Haswell, for appellants. R. H. Bowmer, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

The sureties in each bond are liable to the ward for any money which came to the hands of their principal, whether received before or after the date of the bond upon which they are sureties. *Elbert v. Jacoby,*8 Bush 542; *Boyk v. Gault, et al.,*3 Bush 644.

The credit for the board and clothing- of the ward was properly rejected. During- the years 1861, 2 and 3, and a portion of the year 1864 the ward’s father was living, and the guardian was not appointed until August, 1864. During the lifetime of the father he was liable for the board and clothing of the child; and if the appellant is not to be deemed to have boarded and clothed him as an act of hospitality, his claim for compensation was against the father, and not against the child, and especially so as he had not then been appointed guardian.

The evidence shows that from 1864 to the time when the appellant, John A. Stiff, was removed from his office of guardian, the appellee was abundantly able to earn, and did earn as much as his board and clothing were worth. The answer does not contain a counterclaim or a set-off, and no reply was necessary.

Perceiving no error, the judgment is *atñrmed*as to all the appellants except Leonard Cashman. He does not appear to have been served with process, and did not appear in the action.

The judgment as to him is *reversed,*and the cause is remanded, for further proceedings.
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Black Warrior Wireline Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Ronald
Whitter, Chief Financial 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/ Ronald Whitter
-----------------------
Ronald Whitter
Chief Financial Officer



August 15, 2002
#### Cooper & Burns *v.*N. Pennington et al.

Appeal — Presumption—Pleadings.

Where the original answer was demurrable, and the demurrer thereto was overruled, and an amended answer was filed, but not brought into the record, the Court of Appeals will presume that it cured the defects in the original answer and constitutes a valid defense.

Alteration of Instruments — Erasure—Release of Obligors.

Where a contract placed in the hands of a third person and delivered to the obligee, was, before delivery to the obligee, materially altered by erasing certain portions without the knowledge or consent of the obligors,- such alteration operated as the release of the obit: gors.

APPEAL FROM ELLIOTT CIRCUIT COURT.

April 7, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

If it be true, as is contended by the appellants, that the demurrer to the original answer should have been sustained, yet, as it appears that an amended answer was filed at the time of the trial, and this last pleading is not copied intoi the record, this court must presume that it was such as to cover the defects of the original answers, and with it, constitute a valid defense.

As to the proof of Horton’s statements, it appears to have been excluded by the court.

The only important question presented is whether or not the court properly instructed the jury to the effect that if, after the contract had been signed by the several obligors, including Red-wine and Jasuell, and was in the hands of Horton for delivery to the appellants, it was, without their knowledge and approval, altered by the erasures of part of the subscribed names, that alteration rendered the obligations of the appellees void. It does not certainly appear that Horton was in any legal sense the agent of the appellants, so that the appellees’ contract could have been completed by its simple delivery to him:; and as he was entrusted with it for the purpose of delivering it to the appellants, if previous to delivering it he had made the erasures, without their knowledge, we are not prepared to say, in view of the authorities' touching the question, that the appellees would not have remained bound *661by the writing; but if, as is hypothetically submitted to the jury, and is in fact proven by one of the appellants, Horton, before delivering the obligation, made the erasures without the knowledge, authority, or consent of the appellees, we are clearly of the opinion that the alterations operated to release them according to principles well settled by this court.

*Cooper & Burns, for appellants. ■*

*J. R.*Botts, *for appellees.*

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<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>                                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     0
<PP&E>                                                           39708
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  (36675)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    3033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            43595
<BONDS>                                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                         15000
<OTHER-SE>                                                      (55562)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      3033
<SALES>                                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     0
<CGS>                                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 13648
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (13648)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             (13648)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (13648)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0



</TABLE>
11036.

#### Carter *v.*Norton.

Decided March 11, 1920.

Smith, J.

1. Where a defendant in a suit for slander pleaded justification, admitting that he used substantially the language set out in the plaintiff's petition, and there was evidence to sustain the plea, the court did not err in submitting that issue to the jury.

2. “In all civil cases the preponderance of testimony is considered sufficient to produce mental conviction.” Civil Code (1910), § 5730.

*(a)*“In an action for slander, where the language alleged to have been used imputes to the plaintiff guilt of an indictable offense, he establishes a prima facie case upon proof that the slanderous language, *substantially*as alleged in the petition, was used by the defendant; and, without more, the plaintiff is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged.” *Redfearn*v. *Thompson,*10 *Ga. App.*550 (1) (73 S. E. 949).

(5) Therefore, in order to sustain his plea of justification, it was not incumbent upon the defendant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the truth of the language set out in the petition, but it was sufficient to authorize a verdict in his favor if he *substantially*proved by a preponderance of the testimony the truth of the language alleged as slanderous; and it was not error for the court so to charge the jury.

3. The preceding rulings having decided adversely *to*the plaintiff in error all the points made and insisted upon in special grounds of his motion for a new trial, and there being some evidence to sustain the verdict, the judgment refusing a new trial must be

*Affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*

*80Action for slander; from city court of Valdosta—-Judge Cranford. October *4,*1919.

*Dan R.*Bruce, for plaintiff.

*E. K. Wilcox,*for defendant.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DRAPER FRANK WOODYARD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-00566-WS-N

)

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo 

determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 

objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and dated July 18, 2013, is ADOPTED as the 

opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction (docs. 4, 13) be and is hereby DENIED. 

DONE this 5th day of August, 2013.

/s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:12-cv-00566-WS-N Document 52 Filed 08/05/13 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          30,338
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               8
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,864
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     85,833
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         473,792
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           463,822
<LOANS>                                      2,294,246
<ALLOWANCE>                                     35,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,096,213
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,578,206
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,031,866
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             30,135
<LONG-TERM>                                    259,810
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           151
<OTHER-SE>                                     196,045
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,096,213
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 95,070
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               22,425
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               117,495
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              38,139
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              74,672
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           48,823
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,177
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 31,844
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,133
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      17,133
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,766
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.79
<LOANS-NON>                                     14,955
<LOANS-PAST>                                       704
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   502
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                37,583
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  (4,206)
<RECOVERIES>                                       535
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               35,089
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            35,089
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
         

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated condensed financial statements for the nine-months ended February
28, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                       1,578,487
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  451,293
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    853,134
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,034,176
<PP&E>                                       1,001,292
<DEPRECIATION>                               (413,135)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,266,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,414,395
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,750
<COMMON>                                        50,403
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,563,010
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,266,998
<SALES>                                      2,476,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,476,279
<CGS>                                        1,164,174
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,164,174
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,707,799
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,415
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,405,109)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,405,109)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,405,109)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              16
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     265
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                            202
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                         (6)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       265
<SALES>                                             29
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    31
<CGS>                                               29
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       31
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (3)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   6
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (5)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (5)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (5)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.2

I, Kay Carter, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal financial
officer) of Whitehall Limited, Inc. certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Whitehall Limited,
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 registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

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

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly
report based on such evaluation; and

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

5.     The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

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

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

Date: November 15, 2004

| |  |                                                  
| |  | -------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Kay Carter                                   
| |  |                                                  
| |  | Kay Carter, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Criminal Action No. 12-00076-KD-B

)

DOMINIQUE THOMAS, )

)

Defendant. )

 ORDER

This action is before the Court on the motion to “reassess” sentence filed by Defendant 

Dominique Thomas (doc. 78). Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein, the motion 

is DENIED. 

In 2012, Thomas plead guilty to Count Two of the Indictment charging possession of a 

firearm during a drug trafficking crime. In October 2012, he was sentenced to a term of sixty 

months to be followed by thirty-six months of supervised release (doc. 27). Thomas was released 

and his supervision commenced on July 19, 2019. His supervised release has been revoked three

times (docs. 53, 67, 77). 

Most recently, on December 1, 2023, he was sentenced to a term of six months with credit 

for time served since October 14, 2023 (doc. 77). Appearing pro se, he now moves the Court to 

“reassess” his six-month sentence and allow immediate release. He argues that the sentence “will 

literally ruin” his life, and that he is “more than ready, anxious, and willing to once again be a 

productive member of society, working and taking care of [his] family” (Id.). 

“Federal courts are forbidden, as a general matter, to ‘modify a term of imprisonment once it 

has been imposed,’ 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); but the rule of finality is subject to a few narrow 

exceptions.” Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 526, 131 S. Ct. 2685, 2689, 180 L. Ed. 2d 519 

Case 1:12-cr-00076-KD-B Document 79 Filed 01/16/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
2

(2011), holding modified by Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765, 201 L. Ed. 2d 72 (2018). 

Section 3582(c) states that an imposed term of imprisonment may be reduced when there are 

“extraordinary and compelling reasons [that] warrant such a reduction” or “the defendant is at least 

70 years of age” and certain factors are met. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) & (ii). The Court “may 

modify an imposed term of imprisonment” if a statute expressly permits the modification, or by way 

of Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). The Court may 

modify an imposed term of imprisonment when the defendant’s “sentencing range has subsequently 

been lowered by the Sentencing Commission”, and certain other factors are met. 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(2). Modification or vacation of a sentence may be available under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, or 

U.S.C. § 2241. 

However, the grounds alleged in Thomas’ motion are not within the purview of any statute 

or rule that provides for modification or reduction of a sentence. Accordingly, his motion is due to 

be denied. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 16th day of January 2024.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cr-00076-KD-B Document 79 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>