alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HARRISON v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY.

No. 6495.

January 18, 1929.

*B. F.*Neal, for plaintiff.

*Felton & Felton*and *H. A.*Wilkinson, for defendant.

Hill, J.

The Court of Appeals requested instruction from the Supreme Court upon the following question: “Where a railroad company operates its trains through the limits of a city in this State at a rate of speed in excess of that permitted within the city limits by a valid ordinance of the city, which limits the speed of trains to a speed not exceeding five miles per hour, and where, as a result of the operation of the trains through the city at a rate of speed in excess of that permitted under the ordinance of the city, an owner of land upon which is situated a house in close proximity/ to wit one hundred yards, of the railroad-track over which the trains are operating, suffers a damage to the house, caused from the vibrations of the trains when running past the house at a rate of speed in excess of that permitted by the ordinance, and at a rate of speed of forty miles per hour, is there a right of action in the owner of the house against the railroad company for damages to the house thus sustained as the proximate result of the operation of the trains?”

Hnder previous rulings of this court, where a certified question from the Court of Appeals does not propound a distinct question of law, but asks for a decision of the whole case, this court need not *678answer such question. *Southern Exchange Bank*v. *First National Bank of*Dublin, 165 *Ga.*289 (140 S. E. 753), and cit.; *English*v. *Rosenkrantz,*150 *Ga.*817 (105 S. E. 613); *Bull*v. *Carpenter,*158 *Ga.*360 (123 S. E. 614). The question propounded by the Court of Appeals in the instant case raises a mixed question of law and fact and does not state a distinct question of law. To answer the question as propounded, this court would have to consider- and decide a question of fact, that is, whether the building alleged to have been damaged by the vibrations of trains run at a rate of speed in excess of that permitted by a valid ordinance was a structure of reasonable stability and of such firmness and strength of construction, having regard to the materials of which it was built, as would enable it to withstand and not be damaged by the trains of the defendant company if they had not been run at an unlawful rate of speed, that is, at a rate of speed in excess of that permitted by a valid city ordinance. Manifestly, this court will not assume that the building was or was not such a structure; but it would have to assume the one or the other in order to answer the question propounded by the Court of Appeals. Eor that reason, in view of the decisions cited above, this court declines to answer the question.

*All the Justices*concur; *except*Bussell, *C. J., who dissents.*
Exhibit  32.1

    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 Mason Hill Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2001 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Geoffrey Eiten, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

          1.     The Report fully complies with he 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.


     Date:     February  24,  2004

     /s/  Geoffrey  Eiten
     President
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAMUEL DOWELL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 19-35110 

D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01939-BR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Samuel Dowell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 

“Extraordinary Writ Challenge.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review de novo, see United States v. Walgren, 885 F.2d 1417, 1420 (9th Cir. 

1989), and we affirm. 

 

* 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

MAY 28 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-35110

Dowell contends that the district court erred in concluding that he was 

attempting to attack his conviction. Rather, he argues that he was seeking a “class 

action civil writ” under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 based on the unconstitutionality of the 

federal statutes proscribing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2250-2260. As an 

initial matter, Dowell points to no authority suggesting that 28 U.S.C. § 1651 is a 

proper vehicle for such an action. Moreover, child pornography is not protected by 

the First Amendment, see New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 764 (1982), and the 

Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to criminalize its intrastate possession, see 

United States v. Sullivan, 797 F.3d 623, 631-32 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court,

therefore, properly denied relief. 

AFFIRMED.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1555 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2300 Sylvan Avenue in Modesto, California, 

as the ‘‘Corporal Michael D. Anderson Jr. Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1555 EH

1 SECTION 1. CORPORAL MICHAEL D. ANDERSON JR. POST 

2 OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 2300 Sylvan Avenue in Modesto, 

5 California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Cor6 poral Michael D. Anderson Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Corporal Michael D. 

11 Anderson Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1555 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostAnderson Jr. Post Office Building’’. desto, California, as the ‘‘Corporal Michael D. al Service located at 2300 Sylvan Avenue in Mo-
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a),AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I Andrew H.
Reich, certify that:



1. I have reviewed
this amendment no. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Siebert Financial Corp.;



2. Based on
my knowledge, this 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 report;

|                                                                                            |  |                         
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|/s/
    Andrew H. Reich                                                                     |  | Date: April 30,
    2018
|Andrew H. Reich                                                                             |  |                         
|Executive Vice
    President, Chief Operating Officer,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |  |                         
|(principal executive,
    financial and accounting officer)                                 |  |
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.
33-85142) and Forms S-8 (No. 33-48476, 33-54175, 33-56291, 33-65199, 333-88907, 333-88923,
333-90167 and 333-116053) of ALLTEL Corporation of our reports dated February 10, 2005 relating to
the consolidated financial statements, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report dated February 10, 2005 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in
this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Little Rock, Arkansas
February 10, 2005
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

KERRI S. KUHLMANN,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondent

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Intervenor

______________________

2024-1527

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-1221-17-0437-W-1.

______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________

Before STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Before the court are Kerri S. Kuhlmann’s petition for 

panel rehearing of the aspect of the court’s June 25, 2024 

remand order that denied her motion to vacate the initial 

Case: 24-1527 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 08/12/2024
2 KUHLMANN v. LABOR

decision in this matter, ECF No. 28, and Ms. Kuhlmann’s 

motions to (1) take judicial notice of a June 20, 2024 decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board and modify the 

court’s June 25, 2024 remand order, ECF No. 22, and (2)

vacate the Board’s June 20th decision and initial decision, 

ECF Nos. 23, 27. The Board responds to the motions. 

Ms. Kuhlmann sought this court’s review after the 

Board informed her that, due to a recusal, it lacked a 

quorum, making the initial decision the final decision of the 

Board. On June 25, 2024, we remanded to the Board for 

further proceedings in light of the Board’s statement that 

there was now a quorum. Unbeknownst to the court (and 

prior to the issuance of our mandate), the Board purported 

to issue a new final decision on June 20, 2024. 

“Normally a petition for judicial review, like an appeal 

from a judgment of a district court, transfers authority over 

the case,” Gao v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 728, 729 (7th Cir. 

2006) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 

U.S. 56 (1982)), and “[u]ntil the mandate issues[,] . . . any 

action by the [originating tribunal] is a nullity.” Kusay v. 

United States, 62 F.3d 192, 194 (7th Cir. 1995). The Board 

offers no authority for issuing a “new” final decision while 

the matter was still pending before this court and does not 

seriously defend it here. We therefore vacate that decision.

We deny Ms. Kuhlmann’s request to vacate the initial 

decision, which she can challenge before the Board and 

then before this court if necessary. Finally, Ms. Kuhlmann

asks the court to correct the June 25, 2024 order to indicate 

the Board purported to reopen her appeal before Chairman 

Harris revised her recusal position. That request, which 

the Board does not oppose, will be granted to the extent 

that the court will issue a corrected modified order. 

Accordingly,

Case: 24-1527 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 08/12/2024
KUHLMANN v. LABOR 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) ECF No. 23 is granted to the extent that the 

Board’s June 20, 2024 decision is vacated. 

(2) ECF No. 22 is granted to the extent that the court 

will issue a corrected June 25, 2024 order.

(3) The petition for panel rehearing is denied. 

August 12, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

Case: 24-1527 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 08/12/2024
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29512]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 
20549-2736.
Extension: Form 3;
    SEC File No. 270-125, OMB Control No. 3235-0104.
    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved 
collection of information discussed below.
    Under the Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) every person 
who is directly or indirectly the beneficial owner of more than 10 
percent of any class of any equity security (other than an exempted 
security) which registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act (15 
U.S.C. 78l), or who is a director or an officer of the issuer of such 
security (collectively ``insiders''), must file statement with the 
Commission reporting their ownership. Form 3 (17 CFR 249.103) is an 
initial statement of beneficial ownership of securities. Approximately 
16,855 insiders file Form 3 annually and it takes approximately 0.5 
hours to prepare for a total of 8,428 annual burden hours.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this 
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. 
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#edbe858c8a988b998cb2ac85808889ad82808fc388829dc38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="37645f56504251435668765f5a525377585a551952584719505841">[email protected]</span></a>; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi 
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email 
to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c0c0e1d03113d35303e33241c2f393f723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="550507140a18343c39373a2d152630367b323a23">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 
days of this notice.

    Dated: December 11, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29512 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 2 02 4

- 1 862 LT Case No. 2000

- CF

- 000803

- A

_____________________________ A NTHONY J. A KINS , Petitioner,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent.

_____________________________
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus , A Case of Original Jurisdiction. Anthony J. Akins, Graceville, pro se. No Appe arance for Respondent. September 13, 2024

P ER C URIAM
. This Court previously affirmed Petitioner’s direct appeal and thereafter, affirmed several postconviction appeals filed in this Court stemming from Putnam County Circuit Court Case No. 2000

- CF

- 000803

- A. Because it appears that Petitioner’s filings are abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous, Petitioner is cautioned that any further pro se filings in this Court asserting claims stemming from the identified case number may result in sanctions such as a bar on pro se filings in this Court and referral to prison2

officials for disciplinary proceedings, which may include forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (202 4 ); State v. Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999). Moreover, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed July 8, 2024, is dismissed with prejudice. See Richardson v. State , 918 So. 2d 999, 1002

– 03 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2006). P ETITIONER W ARNED ; P ETITION D ISMISSED with P REJUDICE
. J AY , S OUD , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur .

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TAVARIS LAMON BODY, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-0483-CG-C

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 10-0232-CG

Respondent. :

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that petitioner’s rights were not 

violated in this cause and that his request to vacate, set aside or correct his 

sentence (Doc. 88; see also Doc. 93) is hereby, DENIED. Body is not entitled to 

a certificate of appealability and, therefore, he is not entitled to appeal in 

forma pauperis.

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of June, 2013.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cr-00232-CG-C Document 100 Filed 06/06/13 Page 1 of 1
11538.

#### Sisson *v.*Roberts.

Smith, J.

1. Where the owner of an automobile delivers it to the proprietor of a garage, for the purpose of having repairs made upon it, and no agreement is made as to the time in which the repairs are to be completed, the question as to what is a reasonable time is one for determination by a jury.

2. Where, after the delivery of the automobile for repairs, it is taken down and dismantled, and the parts are distributed around the shop among other like parts of machines and machinery, so as to make it impracticable, without putting the parts together again, to give an opinion as to the value of the machine, and the owner brings trover, after demand for the return of the property, claiming that it was kept for an unreasonable time, and claiming also that he, at the time of the demand, offered to pay whatever charges for repairs had accrued up to that time, evidence as to the value of the property at the time it was placed in the hands of the defendant, and evidence as to its value a week, or as much as a month, prior to that time, was admissible, and was such evidence as could be considered by the jury in determining the highest market value of the property between the time of conversion and the date of the trial of the case, the defendant not pleading or attempting to show by evidence that there had been any change in the condition of the property after delivery to him. See, in this connection, *Gordon*v. *Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.,*7 *Ga. App.*355, 350 (66 S. E. 988).

3. The court did not err in rejecting the amendment to the defendant’s answer, which amendment sought to recoup an amount claimed to be due the defendant for work and repairs made on the automobile in question. See *Youngblood*v. *Armour Fertilizer Works,*23 *Ga. App.*731 (1, 2) (99 S. E. 314), and cit.

4. The charge of the court fully and fairly submitted to the jury the substantial issues in the case and the law applicable thereto, and the *726excerpts from *the charge*complained of, when taken in connection with the entire charge, do not contain reversible error.

Decided November 2, 1920.

Trover; from city court of Hall county — Judge Wlieeler. March 23, 1920.

*E. D. Kenyon,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. M. Merritt, Sloan & Sloan,*contra.

5. There was evidence to support the verdict, and, it having the approval of the trial judge, this court will not interfere with his judgment refusing a new trial. ■

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


May 21, 2015


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, NASDAQ International Dividend
Achievers Index Trust, Series 5


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, NASDAQ International Dividend Achievers Index Trust, Series 5 set forth above (the
“Trust”). We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated
therein reflect our evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on May 20, 2015, in accordance with the valuation method
set forth in the Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing
the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-202722) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO________________


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
|  | 1) | the                    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                    or 15(d) of                    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                            |                                                    |                                         |
|-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                                       |                                               |                                    |
| Dated:                  February 13, 2008  |                                               | /s/ WILLIAM                  P. SPENCER |
|                                            | William P. SpencerChief Executive Officer and President |

----