alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1Parrish also contests the validity of the lien under Texas law. We assume for the purpose of

applying § 522 that an enforceable lien existed, but we express no opinion as to the merits of

Parrish's contention. 

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 93-8063

Summary Calendar.

In the Matter of Samuel Ray PARRISH, Debtor.

Sharman Rae McVAY, Appellant,

v.

Samuel Ray PARRISH, Appellee.

Nov. 15, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The parties contest the avoidance in bankruptcy of an equitable lien imposed by a Texas

divorce decree. We agree with the courts below that the lien is avoidable as a judgment lien under

11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

Samuel Parrish and Sharman McVay married March 6, 1982. A year later Parrish inherited

a 23.15 acre tract from his mother. The parties divorced on March 21, 1991. The divorce decree

included a judgment in McVay's favor against Parrish for $76,500, representing half of the

reimbursement to the community estate for improvements Parrishmade to the land he inherited. This

judgment was secured by an equitable lien against that land. Parrish filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy

relief on May 29, 1991. The bankruptcy court allowed Parrish to avoid the lien under 11 U.S.C. §

522(f)(1), 144 B.R. 349 and the district court affirmed.

Section 522(f)(1) allows a debtor to avoid the fixing of a judicial lien on property made

exempt as a Texas homestead.1 Its protection is limited in that a debtor cannot avoid a lien on an

interest acquired after a lien attached. Farrey v. Sanderfoot, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1825, 114
L.Ed.2d 337 (1991). Farrey involved a divorce decree that simultaneously ended a marital

community and created a lien against one of the new separate property interests. The court reasoned

that when a debtor simultaneously acquired a fee simple interest and a lien on that interest, there was

no risk that the lien had been created by a creditor rushing to court in anticipation of bankruptcy. The

policy behind section 522(f)(1) was not advanced by applying it under those circumstances. Id. ---

U.S. at ---- - ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1830-31. See also In re Finch, 130 B.R. 753, 757 (S.D.Tex.1991)

(reaching the same result under Texas community property law).

 This case is distinguishable from Farrey and Finch. Parrish acquired the property through

inheritance in 1983 as his separate property. From that point on it was his separate property, as

Texas law fixes the character of property as of the time of inception of title. Eggemeyer v.

Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex.1977). Thus the decree did not create a new property

interest for Parrish as did the decreesin Farrey and Finch. Since Parrish's interest existed before the

divorce and continued unaltered afterwards, we find that the lien attaching to that property was

avoidable under section 522.

AFFIRMED.
#### Jessie J. Ellington, Jr., et al., Respondents, v R.L.S.A. Realty Corp., Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendants. (And a Second Third-Party Action.)

[609 NYS2d 781]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered December 4, 1991, which denied defendant R.L.S.A. Realty Corp.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. In this action by tenants of an apartment hotel for injuries allegedly sustained in a fire on defendant’s premises, there are triable issues of fact regarding the owner’s maintenance of safe premises. Moreover, summary judgment would be premature under the circumstances, in view of plaintiff’s outstanding discovery request. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of Trinity3 Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Shannon T. Squyres, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated: April 14, 2004                   /s/  Shannon T. Squyres
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        By:  Shannon T. Squyres
                                        Its: Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Trinity3 Corporation and will be retained by Trinity3 Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                             MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
                                805 Third Avenue
                            New York, New York 10022

               LETTER TO COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T

                                           March 25, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549-0408

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, Medis
Technologies Ltd. has obtained a letter of representation from Arthur Andersen
LLP ("Andersen") stating that the December 31, 2001 audit was subject to their
quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen
personnel working on the audit, availability of national office consultation and
availability of personnel at affiliates of Andersen to conduct the relevant
portions of their audit.

                                         Very truly yours,

                                         MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD.


                                         By:     /s/ HOWARD WEINGROW
                                            Name:  Howard Weingrow
                                            Title: President
#### A. Gum *v.*G. M. Adams & Co.

Practice — Abatement—Exceptions to Evidence.

Where it appears from the evidence that one who is not a party, is a partner of the plaintiff, defendant by motion and rule should have required the plaintiff to make such person a party plaintiff or dismiss his suit, hut having failed to do so he waived his right.

Exceptions to Evidence.

Exceptions to evidence not made grounds for a new trial, pursuant to Civ. Code, § 372, will not he considered by the court of appeals.

APPEAL PROM PAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

March 26, 1875.

*Morton & Parker, for appellant.*

*Huston & Billingsley, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

As to the first paragraph of the answer, which seeks an abatement of the action because Hugh W. Adams was not a plaintiff, it is sufficient to say that when it appeared from the evidence that he was the partner of the plaintiff, G. M. Adams, appellant should have, by motion and rule, required G. M. Adams to make him a plaintiff or dismiss his suit; but having failed to apply for or obtain a rule to that effect, he waived his right. *Carpenter v. Miles,*17 B. Mon. 598. Counsel for appellant seem to be laboring under some mistake as to the evidence of Hugh W. Adams. The witness proves, that he saw the original entry made on the books of the firm, by which Green was credited by the $95, and proved he had some knowledge of the transaction, and that the credit was afterwards, by mistake, given to appellant. The evidence was, therefore, competent.

The letter of McGuire arid the testimony of Pilcher were competent to contradict the statements of McGuire, who was the principal witness relied on to prove payment of the debt sued for, if for no other purpose. Besides, the exceptions to the evidence are not made a ground for a new trial, and under Sec. 372, Civil Code, on account of that omission this court cannot consider that objection.

Perceiving no error in the proceedings in the court below prejudicial to appellant, the judgment is *affirmed.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

OMAR SAUNDERS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 7 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of July, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The issue, as stated by petitioner

, is:

Does this Court’s holding in Commonwealth v. Alexander , 243 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2020), require a fact specific assessment to determine whether exigency exists to provide officers with a right of access to the interior of an automobile under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement?
**Exhibit 15.1**

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders 

Beckman Coulter, Inc.: 

We have reviewed theaccompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of Beckman Coulter, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2010, and the related condensed consolidated statements of earnings and cash flows for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2010and 2009. These condensed consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. 

We conducted our reviewsin accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible forfinancial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of which is the expression of an opinionregarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 

Based on our reviews, we are not awareof any material modifications that should be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. 

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balancesheet of Beckman Coulter, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for the year then ended (not presentedherein) and in our report dated February 22, 2010, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. The audit report on the consolidated financial statements refers to changes in the Company’s method ofaccounting for business combinations and certain convertible debt securities due to the adoption of new accounting pronouncements in 2009. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as ofDecember 31, 2009, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Irvine, California 

May 5, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSE GOINES,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 501 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSE GOINES,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 502 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSE GOINES,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 503 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of February, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
----

|   | (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. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|              | By: /s/ Jerome S. Flum                                                                                |
|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|              |              Jerome S. Flum          |
|              |              Chief Executive Officer |
|              |                                                                                                  |
| November 12, 2010 |                                                                                                  |

----
11276.

#### Waters *v.*Gainesville National Bank, *et al.*

Stephens, J.

Upon the trial of a claim case, where there was evidence to the effect that the personal property levied on had been bought by the claimant, but that the written contract of sale, contained -in- a pur- ■ chase-money note to the vendor, was signed both by the claimant and , one of the- defendants in fi. fa., it whs error to rule out and exclude from the jury, on motion of the plaintiff in fi. fa., testimony of the vendor which tended to establish the fact that the contract was signed-by the defendant in fi. fa. under circumstances that rendered him a *120guarantor or surety for the payment of the purchase-money by the claimant, and not a joint maker of the contract or a purchaser of the property. The statement of the trial judge, in passing upon the motion, that he withdrew from the consideration of the jury any parol testimony delivered by the witness which would contradict the terms of the contract, was prejudicial to the claimant and calculated to mislead and confuse the jury. The trial judge therefore erred in overruling, the claimant’s motion for a new trial.

Decided January 20, 1921.

Levy and claim; from city court of Hall county — Judge Wheeler. January 14, 1920.

*W. B. Sloan,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. N. Davie, W. V. Lance,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.*
Commonwealth of Virginia 

County of Fairfax 

General and Special Elections 

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 

SAMPLE BALLOT 

WINvote - Ballot Style 01 - 8th District – Screen 1 of 3 

Authorized by

Fairfax County Electoral Board 

12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 323

Fairfax, Virginia 22035 

Phone: (703) 324-4735 or E-mail: elect@fairfaxcounty.gov 

Notice: The authority statement printed above must be removed and replaced with the appropriate authority statement

for the committee, individual or group using this ballot for their own purposes. The authority statement used for this ballot 

must comply with the requirements of both federal and state law. For state requirements, see § 24.2-943 of the Code of

Virginia. For federal requirements, call the Federal Elections Commission, 1-800-424-9530. 
Commonwealth of Virginia 

County of Fairfax 

General and Special Elections 

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 

SAMPLE BALLOT 

WINvote - Ballot Style 01 - 8th District – Screen 2 of 3 

Authorized by

Fairfax County Electoral Board 

12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 323

Fairfax, Virginia 22035 

Phone: (703) 324-4735 or E-mail: elect@fairfaxcounty.gov 

Notice: The authority statement printed above must be removed and replaced with the appropriate authority statement

for the committee, individual or group using this ballot for their own purposes. The authority statement used for this ballot 

must comply with the requirements of both federal and state law. For state requirements, see § 24.2-943 of the Code of

Virginia. For federal requirements, call the Federal Elections Commission, 1-800-424-9530. 
Commonwealth of Virginia 

County of Fairfax 

General and Special Elections 

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 

SAMPLE BALLOT 

WINvote - Ballot Style 01 - 8th District – Screen 3 of 3 

Authorized by

Fairfax County Electoral Board 

12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 323

Fairfax, Virginia 22035 

Phone: (703) 324-4735 or E-mail: elect@fairfaxcounty.gov 

Notice: The authority statement printed above must be removed and replaced with the appropriate authority statement

for the committee, individual or group using this ballot for their own purposes. The authority statement used for this ballot 

must comply with the requirements of both federal and state law. For state requirements, see § 24.2-943 of the Code of

Virginia. For federal requirements, call the Federal Elections Commission, 1-800-424-9530.
#### Hardesty et al. *v.*Fordice et al.

Vendor’s *Lien.—Promissory*Note.—Fordice *v.*Hardesty, 36 Ind. 23, adhered to.

APPEAL from the Parke Circuit Court.

*D. E. Williamson*and *A. Daggy,*for appellants.

*y. M. Allen, W. Mack, D, H. Maxwell, S. F Maxwell,*and •S'. *D. Puett,*for appellees.

Downey, J.

The appellees sued the appellants upon certain promissory notes, which were executed by the appellants to one Hamilton and by him indorsed to the appellees. The result was a judgment for the appellees, from which the appellants appealed to this court.

The notes which are the foundation of this action were executed at the same time, between the same parties, and for the same consideration, as the notes which were the causes of action in the case of *Fordice*v. *Flardesty,*36 Ind. 23, and, except that the parties are reversed in this court, this case is, in all respects, like that, and the questions are the same. For the reasons there given, this case must be affirmed.

The judgment is affirmed, with four per cent, damages and costs.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29553]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Alan T. Waterman Award Committee; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Alan T. Waterman Award Committee (1172).
    Date and Time: January 8, 2015, 8:30 a.m.-2:00 p.m.
    Place: NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1295, Arlington, Virginia 
22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Ms. Mayra Montrose, Program Manager, Room 1282, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230; 
Telephone: 703-292-8040.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations in the 
selection of the Alan T. Waterman Award recipient.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate nominations as part of the 
selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: December 12, 2014.
Suzanne Plimpton,
Acting, Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-29553 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1568 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1568

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to protect personally identifiable 
                  information, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Moving Americans Privacy Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 431(c) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1431(c)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(2)(A) The information listed in paragraph (1) shall not be 
available for public disclosure if--
            ``(i) the Secretary of the Treasury makes an affirmative 
        finding on a shipment-by-shipment basis that disclosure is 
        likely to pose a threat of personal injury or property damage; 
        or
            ``(ii) the information is exempt under the provisions of 
        section 552(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code.
    ``(B) The Secretary shall ensure that any personally identifiable 
information, including Social Security numbers and passport numbers, is 
removed from any manifest signed, produced, delivered, or 
electronically transmitted under this section before access to the 
manifest is provided to the public.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 18, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1568

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to protect personally identifiable 
                  information, and for other purposes.
```
EXHIBIT 12.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Wilfried Vancraen,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of MATERIALISE NV (the company);
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this report fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 26, 2018



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Wilfried Vancraen  
|    |  | Wilfried Vancraen      
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer