alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### B. W. Broaddus, et al., *v.*Jas. D. Easter.

Partition Fence — Maintenance Agreement.

A verbal agreement by adjoining landowners to each, maintain a designated portion of a partition fence does not run with the land and is not binding on the grantees of either of the parties to- such agreement.

Agreement.

An agreement between the owners of adjacent lands for erecting and keeping up a division fence, only runs with the land, when reduced to writing and signed, acknowledged and recorded as prescribed by the statutes.

APPEAL PROM ESTILL CIRCUIT COURT.

November 18, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer :

Neither the pleadings nor the evidence disclose any contract or agreement in reference to the alleged division fence, sufficient to render the appellants liable under Secs, i and 2, Art. 3, Chap. 55, General Statutes.

The agreement set up in the petition is alleged to- have been made between Jesse Benton, who owned the farm where the plaintiff now lives, and Beverly Broaddus, or Edward J. Broaddus, the father of the defendants, who owned the- land where the defendants now live.

The defendants deny that any such agreement had ever been made, and the only evidence offered to prove its existence- was that many years ago, in the lifetime of Jesse Benton, under whom plaintiffs claim, and in the lifetime- of Edward Broaddus, under whom defendants claim, a conversation was had in the spring of 1853, between said Benton and Broaddus, in which they agreed that the *538division fence between their land was right. There was no agreement made between said Benton and Broaddus; but they spoke of an agreement between Beverly Broaddus and Jesse Benton made before' that time, and said said agreement was right. It also appeared that each party had kept up his part of the fence since that time.

*H. C. Lilly, J. B. White, for appellants.*

The defendants excepted to this .evidence, and it should have been excluded. Such an agreement did not run with the land; and as there was no evidence that the defendant had any notice of. it, and had acted with reference to the agreement, from which arose an agreement on their part to adopt the contract between Benton and Beverly Broaddus as an agreement between themselves and the plaintiff, the court should have instructed the jury to find for the defendants as requested in their fifth instruction.

An agreement between the owners of adjacent lands for erecting and keeping up a division fence does not run with the land, unless reduced to writing and signed and acknowledged, or proved and recorded as prescribed in Sec. I, Art. 3.'

Wherefore the judgment is *reversed,*and the cause is remanded for a new trial upon principles not inconsistent with this opinion.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.7

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


In connection with the Quarterly Report of 3Si Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

(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: November 14, 2002                By: /s/ Frank W. Backes
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Frank W. Backes, Chief Technical
                                           Officer, Chief Financial Officer
                                           and Director
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE JACOBO ESCOBAR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-72402

Agency No. A094-286-899

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 13, 2016**

Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Jose Jacobo Escobar, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA) order denying his motion to reopen 

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

14-72402

F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Escobar’s untimely motion 

to reopen because the evidence supporting his motion, including the declarations of 

Escobar’s father and daughter, did not establish prima facie eligibility for CAT 

relief. See id. at 965-66 (BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ 

motion to reopen to seek CAT relief where petitioner did not demonstrate it was 

more likely than not he would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a 

public official if returned to Guatemala).

We reject Escobar’s contention that the BIA failed to consider evidence. 

See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2009) (BIA adequately 

considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                     Allied Riser Communications Corporation

                                  Subsidiaries
                            (as of December 31, 1999)

<TABLE>

<S>                                                                  <C>
         Allied Riser of Alabama, Inc.                                 DE
         Allied Riser of Arizona, Inc.                                 DE
         Allied Riser of California, Inc.                              DE
         Allied Riser of Colorado, Inc.                                DE
         Allied Riser of Connecticut, Inc.                             DE
         Allied Riser of D.C., Inc.                                    DE
         Allied Riser of Florida, Inc.                                 DE
         Allied Riser of Georgia, Inc.                                 DE
         Allied Riser of Illinois, Inc.                                DE
         Allied Riser of Indiana, Inc.                                 DE
         Allied Riser of Kentucky, Inc.                                DE
         Allied Riser of Louisiana, Inc.                               DE
         Allied Riser of Maryland, Inc.                                DE
         Allied Riser of Massachusetts, Inc.                           DE
         Allied Riser of Michigan, Inc.                                DE
         Allied Riser of Minnesota, Inc.                               DE
         Allied Riser of Missouri, Inc.                                DE
         Allied Riser of Nevada, Inc.                                  DE
         Allied Riser of New Jersey, Inc.                              DE
         Allied Riser of New Mexico, Inc.                              DE
         Allied Riser of New York, Inc.                                DE
         Allied Riser of North Carolina, Inc.                          DE
         Allied Riser of Ohio, Inc.                                    DE
         Allied Riser of Oklahoma, Inc.                                DE
         Allied Riser of Pennsylvania, Inc.                            DE
         Allied Riser of Rhode Island, Inc.                            DE
         Allied Riser of South Carolina, Inc.                          DE
         Allied Riser of Tennessee, Inc.                               DE
         Allied Riser of Texas, Inc.                                   DE
         Allied Riser of Utah, Inc.                                    DE
         Allied Riser of Virginia, Inc.                                VA
         Allied Riser of Washington, Inc.                              DE
         Allied Riser of Wisconsin, Inc.                               DE
         Allied Riser Operations Corporation                           DE
         ARC Long Distance, Inc.                                       DE
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

TERRY LEA BUNCH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FRANKLIN FREEMAN; LYNN PHILLIPS;

VERA BENNETT; RUBY BAKER; GREG

BAKER; PHYLLIS ALFORD; HAZEL

No. 96-7089

KEITH; GEORGE ERWIN; EDDIE PRUITT;

PAT SUMMEY; JOE LOFTIS; PATRICIA

FUQUA; LEONA OWENS; JAMES PIERCE,

III; MARCUS JIMISON, in their

individual and official capacities,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.

(CA-95-978-5-H)

Submitted: December 17, 1996

Decided: December 27, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Terry Lea Bunch, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Terry Bunch appeals the district court's order denying relief on his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Bunch's appeal was not filed

within thirty days of the district court's judgment order dismissing his

complaint, but was filed within thirty days of the court's order denying Bunch's motion to alter the court's judgment. Moreover, although

Bunch described his motion as a Rule 59(e) motion it is properly construed as a motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), because it was

not filed within ten days of the court's original judgment. See In re

Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir. 1992). Bunch's appeal is therefore

timely only as to the order denying his motion, see Fed. R. App. 4,

and our jurisdiction is limited to review of the district court's order

denying Bunch's motion. Burnley, 988 F.2d at 3.

Bunch's motion alleged that the district court's original order failed

to address his claims with respect to a particular Defendant. In denying the motion, the district court explained that its decision held that

Bunch suffered no violation of his constitutional rights, which effectively precluded liability on the part of every Defendant in this action.

Moreover, the court concluded that Bunch's claims as to the remaining Defendant were speculative.

We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Bunch's motion. See NOW v. Operation Rescue, 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir. 1995). Bunch's motion raised

no new legal issues and the arguments asserted in his motion were

both conclusory and speculative. Accordingly, although we grant

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Bunch's motion for

appointment of counsel and affirm the order of the district court. 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.

AFFIRMED

 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1898 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1898

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint Items, 
           Joint Committee on Taxation for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint Items, 
           Joint Committee on Taxation for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR JOINT ITEMS, JOINT 
              COMMITTEE ON TAXATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Joint Items, Joint 
Committee on Taxation for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $11,169,000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONNIE ODELL PARKER, :

AIS 162167,

:

Petitioner,

:

vs. CA 10-0016-WS-C

:

LOUIS BOYD,

:

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)(l)(B) and dated January 21, 2010 is

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE this 25th day of February, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00016-WS-C Document 3 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 23****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationNos. 333-35887,333-42182,333-43081,333-65327,333-65329,333-98811,333-111076 and333-111077 onForm S-8 of ourreports dated May 12, 2006, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule of MylanLaboratories Inc. and management’s report on theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,appearing in this Annual Report onForm 10-K of MylanLaboratories Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2006./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPPittsburgh, PennsylvaniaMay 12, 2006
75
SHARE HANDLING REGULATIONS
  CHAPTER I.     GENERAL PROVISIONS
     (1)
    
    Transfer Agent:
The Sumitomo Trust and Banking Company, Limited
5-33, Kitahama 4-chome, Chuo-ku, Osaka(2)
    
    Handling Office:
Stock Transfer Agency Department     The Sumitomo Trust and Banking Company, Limited
3-1, Yaesu 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo
 CHAPTER II.     DIGITAL ENTRY IN REGISTER OF SHAREHOLDERS, ETC.
  sokabunushi tsuchi kobetsu kabunushi tsuchi
          kokennin




---



##### 



CHAPTER III. PROCEDURES FOR EXERCISE OF SHAREHOLDERS RIGHTS, ETC.
  kobetsu kabunushi tsuchi
   mutatis mutandis
    CHAPTER IV. EXCEPTIONS FOR SPECIAL ACCOUNTS
   CHAPTER V. MISCELLANEOUS




---



##### 



(1)
    
    A registrant of a lost share certificate shall submit, to the transfer agent, a
designated request form or application form together with the documents required by the
Company, in order to apply for the cancellation of the registration of lost share
certificate.(2)
    
    When a holder of old share certificates that have been registered as lost
(excluding a registrant of lost share certificates) applies for the cancellation of the
registration of lost share certificates in accordance with Item (1) of this Article,
such holder shall submit old share certificates that have been registered as lost.(3)
    
    The provision of Article 10 hereof shall be applied mutatis mutandisto the
application set forth in Item (1) of this Article.
#### Ramon Odin LAGOS-M, aka Antonio Cardona, aka Ramon Odin Lagos-Murillo, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Victor LORANTH, Doctor at Federal Correctional Institution Williamsburg, in Individual and Official Capacity; Donald F. Bauknecht, Warden at Federal Correctional Institution Williamsburg, in Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-7163.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.

Decided Dec. 27, 2007.

Ramon Odin Lagos-M, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ramon Odin Lagos-M, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Lagos-M. v. Loranth,*No. 9:07-cv-01409, 2007 WL 2105327 (D.S.C. July 19, 2007). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7610** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
GREGORY WAYNE WASHINGTON, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Norman K. Moon , Senior District Judge. ( 6:09

- cr
- 00001

- NKM

- 1 )

Submitted : December 20, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Gregory Wayne Washington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Craig Jon Jacobsen, I, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gregory Wayne Washington, Jr., appeals the district

court ’ s order denying his 18 U.S. C. § 3582(c) (2) (2006) motion

.
We have review ed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Washington , No. 6:09

- cr
- 00001

- NKM (W.D. Va. Sept. 10, 2012). 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.

AFFIRMED
**HCCINDUSTRIES INC.COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES(in thousands)**

 
|                                | For the Three Months Ended |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                                |                                 |
|                                | June 30,                        |   | July 1, |   |
|                                | 2001                            |   | 2000 |   |
|                                |                                 |   |  |   |
|                                |                            |   |   |   |
| Earnings:                           |                            |   |   |   |
|                                |                            |   |   |   |
|                                | Earnings  before taxes          | $ | 1,900 |   | $ | 1,524 |   |
|                                |                            |   |   |   |
|                                | Add:  Fixed Charges*       | 2,465 |   | 2,862 |   |
|                                |                                 |   |  |   |
|                                | $                               | 4,365 |   | $ | 4,386 |   |
|                                |                                 |   |  |   |
|                                |                            |   |   |   |
|                                |                            |   |   |   |
| *  Fixed Charges:                   |                            |   |   |   |
|                                |                            |   |   |   |
|                                | Interest  expense               | $ | 2,465 |   | $ | 2,862 |   |
|                                |                                 |   |  |   |
|                                | $                               | 2,465 |   | $ | 2,862 |   |
|                                |                                 |   |  |   |
| Ratio  of Earnings to Fixed Charges | 1.8                             |   | 1.5 |   |
|                                |                                 |   |  |   |

----

*  The ratios of earnings to fixed charges werecomputed by dividing earnings by fixed charges.  For this purpose, “earnings” consist of earnings before taxes andextraordinary item plus fixed charges and “fixed charges” consist of interestexpense and amortization of debt issuance costs.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 27, 2015

NO. 03-14-00333-CV

In the Matter of M. L.

APPEAL FROM 33RD DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the order signed by the juvenile court on May 16, 2014. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

juvenile court’s order. Therefore, the Court affirms the juvenile court’s order. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00319-CV

EIGHT THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY AND 00/100 

($8,120.00) DOLLARS IN U.S. CURRENCY

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019DCV-2145-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 26, 2021
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRANCE REASER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0475-CG-B

)

MR. LONG, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

JUDGMENT

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

and DECREED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 41(b) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to obey the Court’s orders, as no other lesser 

sanction will suffice.

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00475-CG-B Document 13 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 1