alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Manford et al. *v.*The Pleasant Grove and Indian Creek Turnpike Company et al.

Turnpike.—Assessment.—Neither the board of érjualization nor any court or body, except the assessors, has power to make any assessment of benefits in the construction of a turnpike.

APPEAL from the Switzerland Circuit Court.

Osborn, C. J.

The main questions in this case were, fully considered in *Hopkins*v. *The Greensburgh, Kingston, and Clarksburg Turnpike Co.,*40 Ind. 44, and *The Greensburgh, Milford, and Hope Turnpike Co.*v. *Sidener,*40 Ind. 424, and we do not think it necessary to reconsider them.

The appellees however insist; that, although lands liable to be assessed are omitted, the only remedy to the landowner was by application for relief to the board of equalization, under sec. 3 of the act of May 14th, 1869, 3- Ind. Stat. 538, of by appeal under sec. 8 of that act. Those sections give no power 'to assess lands omitted. The board can equalize the assessment made. An appeal lies by a person aggrieved by an assessment. No power is given to any court or body, except the assessors, to make any assessment. The power to equalize an assessment made, or to correct it *by*appeal, is entirely different from the power to make one.

*294
      *H. W. Harrington, C. A. Korbly,*and *W. M. Smith,*for appellants.

*C. E. Walker*and *W. R. Johnston,*for appellees.

The judgment of the said Switzerland Circuit Court is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded, with instructions to sustain the demurrer to the answer and for further proceedings.

Downey, J., was absent.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D21-1818

_____________________________

BRIAN A. EVERETT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Meredith Charbula, Judge.

September 15, 2021

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, JAY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Brian A. Everett, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
affw_ex101.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 



RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS







Pursuant to Article III Section 10 of the Bylaws (the “Bylaws”) of American Housing Income Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Corporation”), the Board of Directors of the Corporation unanimously adopt the following resolutions:







RESOLVED, that Direct Transfer, LLC is authorized to perform a beneficial round up of fractional shares of common stock following FINRA’s approval of 1:1,000 reverse stock split.







RESOLVED, that Direct Transfer, LLC is authorized to issue additional shares of common stock as required to facilitate requests to perform the round up of the fractional shares on a beneficial holder level following FINRA approval of 1:1,000 reverse stock split without further notification to or approval of the Board of Directors.







RESOLVED, that these resolutions may be executed in counterpart with facsimile or electronic signatures constituting originals for all intents and purposes.







These resolutions are executed as of May 22, 2015.


 




	
 
APPROVED:



	 
	 	 
	
/s/ Eric Stoffers

	 
	
By: Eric Stoffers

	 
	 
Its: Chairman of the Board

	 
	 	 
	
/s/ Kenneth Hedrick

	 
	
By: Kenneth Hedrick

	 
	 
Its: Director

	 
	 	 
	 	 
	
/s/ Sean Zarinegar

	 
	
By: Sean Zarinegar

	 
	Its: Director
EXHIBIT 32 (b)

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Enzo  Biochem,  Inc.,  and
Subsidiaries  ("the  Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October
31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I, Barry  Weiner.,  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.



Date:  December 12, 2005                    By:  /s/ Barry Weiner
                                                 ----------------
                                                     Barry Weiner
                                                     Chief Financial Officer




         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other  document  authenticating,   acknowledging,   or  otherwise  adopting  the
signature  that  appears in typed form  within  the  electronic  version of this
written statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Act
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### S. B. Redd & Bro. *v.*Mary E. Walker, et al.

Street Improvements — Ordinance and Contract.

Where a city ordinance and the improvement contract under it provide for the improvement of a carriage way twenty-six feet wide, and the contractor constructs such improvement thirty-four feet wide, the city cannot compel the abutting property owners to pay for such improvement.

APPEAL, PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

January 28, 1875.

OPINION by

Judge Lindsay:

The ordinance and the contract restricted the width of the carriage way of Maple street, between 17th and 18th streets, to twenty-six feet, and provided that room for sidewalks twelve feet in width should be left on either side. Notwithstanding all this, the contrao tors constructed the carriage way about thirty-four feet in -width, and left only seven or eight feet on either side for sidewalks. This was an open, palpable, unmistakable departure from the provisions of the ordinance and contract.

The departure was such as to deprive the city of the power to *336compel the property owners to pay the cost of the improvements. The city charter, Sec. 12, provides that in no event shall the city be liable to pay for such work, unless it has the right to enforce the cost against the property receiving the benefit.

*R. C. Davis, for appellants.*

*G. P. Arbegast, for appellees.*

*T. L. Bennett, for Louisville.*

The contractor, by his violation of his contract, deprived the city of the power to enforce the payment of the cost of improving Maple street against Mrs. Walker’s property. He cannot; therefore, complain that relief against the city is denied him.

Judgment *affirmed.*
#### Mrs. H. Clay Fox *v.*Samuel Tipton.

Judgment — Sale of Real Estate — Description.

A judgment ordering tlie sale of real estate, which in itself fails to describe the particular real estate, is erroneous and will he reversed.

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

March 5, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The judgment, as copied in this case, orders a sale of so much of the personal property of Mrs. H. C. Fox, exempt from execution, as will be sufficient to pay the plaintiff the sum of $146.21, with interest from January 1, 1873, until paid, and the costs. And for any balance that might remain unpaid after exhausting the personalty, a sale is ordered of so much of the landed estate of said Mrs. H. C. Fox as may be required to pay the same.

We think there is evidently a mistake in the copy of the judgment before us, and that the word “not” preceding the word exempt was omitted by the copyist, and should be so regarded. But it does not appear in the record that Mrs. H. C. Fox has personal estate sufficient to pay the debt; indeed, it may be inferred from what does appear that she has not personal property subject to execution sufficient to pay said judgment; and it may be necessary, therefore, to sell a part of her real estate. And as this judgment contains no description of any of her real estate except that she has lands in the counties of Clark and Montgomery, which, as has often been decided by this court, is too general and uncertain, imposing the burden on the commissioner of going into the country, after searching out from the record of titles the location and description of her land, of locating it, and then deciding what part, if all should not be required, should be sold, making his duty partly judicial as well as ministerial. *414As, therefore, there is no particular description of the land in the judgment, which would identify it and enable the commissioner, without resort to other means, to ascertain the identical land to be sold, the judgment is erroneous.

*A. J. James, for appellant.*

*Apperson & Reid, for appellee.*

If it becomes necessary to make the requisite identity of the land, the court can send out his master, with the surveyor, and lay off by metes and bounds from one end or side of the land so much as may be deemed nécessary to pay the debt and cost, including the surveyor’s fee and the allowance to the master.

For the error alone of failing to define precisely, in the judgment, the land to be sold, if a sale of land should be necessary, the judgment of the court below is *reversed,*and the cause is remanded for a judgment and for further proceedings consistent herewith.

If there is no mistake in the copy of the judgment before us, and the word “not” before exempt is omitted, that omission will be corrected on the return of the cause.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6334

HENRY W. MARTIN, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STAN BURT, Warden, Lieber Correctional

Institution; MICHAEL SHEEDY, Associate

Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution;

THIERRY NETTLER, Captain, Lieber Correctional

Institution; DELORIS GANTT, Property Control

Office for Lieber Correctional Institution;

L. CARRINGTON, IGC, Institution Grievances

Coordinator,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-03-421-6)

Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 4, 2004

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry W. Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Roy Settana, Jr.,

MCKAY, MCKAY & SETTANA, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*To the extent Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s

dismissal of the § 1983 action, such appeal is untimely. Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Henry W. Martin, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion to alter or amend the dismissal of his action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001).*

 We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and order and

find no reversible error. See United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d

310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982). We deny Martin’s motion to strike and

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Jeffrey L. PERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David A. ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-6162.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 30, 2001.

Jeffrey L. Perry, pro se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and . MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey L. Perry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Perry v. Robinson,*No. CA-00-1772-AM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 11, 2001; entered Jan. 12, 2001). We deny Perry’s motions for a transcript, for production of documents, and for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

NATHANIEL HARRIS, ) 

 ) 

Petitioner, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-00034-WS-N 

 ) 

TONY PATTERSON, ) 

 ) 

Respondent. ) 

 ORDER 

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to 

the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and dated May 7, 2010, is 

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

It is ORDERED that the petitioner=s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct 

Sentence is DISMISSED for failure to seek authorization from the Eleventh Circuit 

Court of Appeals pursuant 28 U.S.C. ' 2244(b)(3)(A) to file a successive petition, and 

that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 

Done this 8th day of June, 2010. 

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00034-WS-N Document 12 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 1
[Cite as State v. Ross, 124 Ohio St.3d 471, 2010-Ohio-719.] 

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. ROSS, APPELLANT. 

[Cite as State v. Ross, 124 Ohio St.3d 471, 2010-Ohio-719.] 

Court of appeals’ judgment reversed in part on the authority of State v. Singleton. 

(No. 2007-1407 — Submitted January 13, 2010 — Decided March 4, 2010.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ashtabula County, No. 2006-A-0088, 

2007-Ohio-3388. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of 

State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434, 920 N.E.2d 958, to the 

extent that the court of appeals held that R.C. 2929.191 could be applied in this 

case. R.C. 2929.191 may not be applied to a sentence entered prior to July 11, 

2006. 

 MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., 

concur. 

 LUNDBERG STRATTON and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in 

the dissenting opinion of LANZINGER, J., in State v. Singleton. 

__________________ 

Thomas L. Sartini, Ashtabula County Prosecuting Attorney, and Shelley 

M. Pratt, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

Ashtabula County Public Defender Office, Inc., and Marie Lane, for 

appellant. 

______________________
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

CORNELIO MATA ESPINOZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10472

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00103-CRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017** 

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Cornelio Mata Espinoza appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying Espinoza’s motion to alter or amend the judgment denying his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his section 2255 motion, Espinoza contended that his trial counsel

FILED

FEB 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
rendered ineffective assistance by advising him to agree in his plea agreement that

he was a career offender for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The district court

denied the motion on the ground that Espinoza’s counsel was not ineffective for

advising Espinoza to stipulate to being a career offender. Espinoza eventually filed

a motion to alter or amend the district court judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(e). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Espinoza’s motion because Espinoza failed to present newly discovered evidence

or to demonstrate that the district court’s conclusion that Espinoza had not suffered

ineffective assistance was clearly erroneous, manifestly unjust, or undermined by

an intervening change in controlling law. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth

standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule 59(e)).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-10472
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 Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A of Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC (the "Companies")
for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter R. Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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 Companies.

|/s/PETER R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive OfficerJune 30,
 2008 |  |  |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 

---



QuickLinks
----

----

| Name                                                          |   | Place of Incorporation |   | Percentage of Ownership |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| B Communications Ltd.                                         |   | Israel                 |   | 67.99%                  |
| Goldmind Media Ltd.                                           |   | Israel                 |   | 100%                    |
|                                                          |   |                   |   |                    |
| Subsidiaries of B Communications Ltd.                         |   |                   |   |                    |
| Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. (TASE: BZEQ) |   | Israel                 |   | 30.89%                  |
| B Communications (SP1) Ltd.                                   |   | Israel                 |   | 100%                    |
| B Communications (SP2) Ltd.                                   |   | Israel                 |   | 100%                    |

----

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                  1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                       23,930
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               226,323
<ALLOWANCES>                                 11,000
<INVENTORY>                                 213,831
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            459,278
<PP&E>                                    1,205,090
<DEPRECIATION>                              347,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            1,383,872
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     1,432,359
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      5,384
<OTHER-SE>                                 (792,294)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              1,383,872
<SALES>                                   1,051,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          1,051,385
<CGS>                                       971,299
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               971,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            534,827
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          116,689
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (571,430)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (571,430)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              43,103
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (528,327)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.25)

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 76997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29961]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2629-014-Vermont]


Village of Morrisville, Vermont; Notice of Availability of Final 
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the 
multi-development Morrisville Hydroelectric Project, located on the 
Green River, Elmore Pond Brook, and Lamoille River in Lamoille County, 
Vermont, and has prepared a final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 
project. The project does not occupy any federal land.
    The final EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential 
environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the 
project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not 
constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the final EA is on file with the Commission and is 
available for public inspection. The final EA may also be viewed on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' 
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the 
docket number field, to access the document. For assistance, contact 
FERC Online Support at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ccac9decfc3e2e0e5e2e9dff9fcfce3fef8cceae9feefa2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c88e8d9a8b87a6a4a1a6ad9bbdb8b8a7babc88aeadbaabe6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a> or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances 
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support.
    For further information, contact Steve Kartalia at (202) 502-6131 
or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f8ab8c9d88909d96d6b3998a8c99949199b89e9d8a9bd69f978e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="db88afbeabb3beb5f590baa9afbab7b2ba9bbdbea9b8f5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 16, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29961 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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