alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### S. Y. Craig *v.*Samuel Brame, et al.

Burden of Proof — Pleading.

The burden of proving the existence of an agreement that a contract was to be void upon certain conditions, where such agreement is not embodied in the contract in suit, is on the party averring that there was such an agreement.

Pleading.

Before a party to a suit is entitled to prove a rescission of contract, he must have pleaded the same.

APPEAL PROM McCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

October 19, 1874.

OpinioN by

Judge Cofer:

We do not think any of the facts relied upon by the counsel for appellees to sustain the judgment of the court, have been established *164by the evidence, to say nothing of the very doubtful question whether the answers present a defense to the action. The burden of proving the existence of the alleged agreement that the contract was to be void' unless the sum of $975 was paid on the 17th of December, and its fraudulent omission from the bond, was on the appellees, and we think they have failed to sustain it. A majority of the witnesses who testify on this subject testify that no such agreement was made, and disprove the alleged missending of the bond by Pitman. The evidence shows that Brame’s sons read from a copy written by Wolfork, and Pitman wrote the new bond after him, and then that it was twice read in the hearing of Samuel Brame, once by Pitman and then by Brame’s son, who, notwithstanding he had some difficulty in reading it, could hardly have made the mistake of reading from it a whole sentence that never was in it.

*L. D. Husband, for appellant.*

/. *W. Harlan, ■for appellee.*

We have no hesitation whatever in deciding that no surchargement was made. The supposed rescission to which much of the evidence is addressed is not pleaded, and if it had been the evidence fails to establish that proposition. Anderson admits that he had heard of the purchase made by Craig and Pitman before he bought, and he fails even to attempt to show that he took any steps whatever to ascertain what their rights were, but seems to have acted in utter disregard both of their rights and his own security. Pitman lived in a short distance of him, and could no doubt have been seen on any day between the 17th and 21st of December, and had he been consulted Anderson could have learned the truth, or if he had not, it would not now be permitted to be set up against him. The position in which he now finds himself is the legitimate result of his reckless disregard of the rights of others, and cannot be weilded to work further injury to them. The court erred in dismissing the appellant’s petition, 'and the judgment is therefore *reversed,*and the cause is remanded with directions to render a judgment specifically enforcing the contract of the 8th of December, 1871, between Samuel Brame and Craig and Pitman in favor of Craig, and to appoint a commissioner to ascertain and report the reasonable value of the rents, and the damages occasioned to the land by waste since appellee, Anderson, has been in possession. He will not be entitled to compensation for improvements, if any, put on the land.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2211 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 

of Agriculture, Wildland Fire Management 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 Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee 

on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Wildland Fire Management 

for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

5 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT FOR FISCAL 

6 YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2211.IH H2211

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2211 IH

1 able for US Department of Agriculture, Wildland Fire 

2 Management for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

3 $2,005,106,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
##### 



FORM 52-109FT2 CERTIFICATION OF INTERIM FILINGS DURING TRANSITION PERIOD I, Harry A. Goldgut, President and CEO of Great Lakes Power Inc., hereby
certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed the interim filings (as this term is defined in
Multilateral Instrument 52-109 Certification of Disclosure in Issuers
Annual and Interim Filings)of Great Lakes Power Inc. for the interim
period ending June 30th, 2004;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the interim filings do not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to
be stated or that it is necessary to make a statement not misleading in
light of the circumstances under which it is made, with respect to the
period covered by the interim filings; and3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the interim financial statements together with the
other financial information included in the interim filings fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the issuer, as of the date and for the periods presented
in the interim filings. Dated this 13th day of August, 2004.  (s) Harry A. GoldgutHarry A. GoldgutPresident and CEO
Exhibit32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Angeles Partners X (the"Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D.Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, andStephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1



   TORYS LLP                                   Suite 3000
-----------------                              79 Wellington St. W.
NEW YORK  TORONTO                              Box 270, TD Centre
                                               Toronto, Ontario
                                               M5K 1N2  Canada

                                               TEL  416.865.0040
                                               FAX  416.865.7380

                                               www.torys.com



                                               February 24, 2004


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


Dear Sirs/Mesdames:


     RE:  BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES CORPORATION

     We are acting as counsel to Brookfield Properties Corporation (the
"Corporation") in connection with the filing on the date hereof of a
Registration Statement on Form S-8 with respect to the common shares in the
capital of the Corporation (the "Shares") issuable upon the exercise of share
options issued to certain insiders of the Corporation pursuant to the
Corporation's Share Option Plan (the "Option Plan").

     We have made such investigations and examined originals or copies certified
or otherwise identified to our satisfaction of such documents, records and
certificates of the Corporation as we have considered necessary or relevant for
the purposes of this opinion including:

     (a)  the articles and by-laws of the Corporation;

     (b)  the Option Plan; and

     (c)  copies of the resolutions of the directors of the Corporation
          authorizing the Option Plan and the issuance of the Shares thereunder.

     For purposes of this opinion, we have assumed with respect to all documents
examined by us, the genuineness of all signatures, the authenticity of all
documents submitted to us as originals, the conformity to authentic original
documents of all documents submitted to us as certified, conformed, telecopied
or photostatic copies and the legal capacity of all individuals who have
executed any of such documents.

     Based and relying upon and subject to the foregoing we are of the opinion
that the Shares have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action on
the part of the Corporation. The Shares will be validly issued and outstanding
as fully paid and non-assessable shares when issued upon exercise of a share
option pursuant to the Option Plan.

<PAGE>

                                      - 2 -


     The foregoing opinion is limited to the laws of Ontario and the federal
laws of Canada applicable therein.

     This letter is provided to you for your benefit, solely with regard to the
filing of the Registration Statement and may not be relied upon by any other
person or for any other purpose without our prior written consent.




                                                Yours very truly,


                                                /s/ Torys LLP
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

   We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-45502, 333-90839, 333-51486 and 333-52562) of
Sycamore Networks, Inc. of our report dated August 19, 2002, except for Note
11, as to which the date is October 23, 2002, relating to the financial
statements, which appear in this Form 10-K.

                                          /s/  PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
October 24, 2002
# CHART OF MISSING COURT DOCUMENTS

Image No.  Title  Date  Pages
76598339 DISMISSED ON DEFENDANT'S MOT ION ORDER SIGNED GRANTING PLEA TO JURISDICTION 9/7/2017  1
76043760 Proposed Order  7/24/2017 1 76598339 ORDER SIGNED GRANTI NG PLEA TO JURISDICTION  9/7/2017  1 76043760 Proposed Order  7/24/2017 1
76515136 Notice of Acceptance of Lack of Jurisdiction with Attached Memorandum of Law and Supplemental Order 8/25/2017 3
∙> 76515138 Exhibit C  8/25/2017 5 ∙> 76515137 Proposed Supplemental Order of the Court  8/25/2017 1

76515140 Memorandum of Law  8/25/2017 11 ∙> 76515141 Exhibit B  8/25/2017 2

76515201+ Exhibits Showing Lack of Consis tency, Fraud, Falsification of Documents, Perjury and Violation of Oaths within the ARB, HCAD and Attorneys 8/25/2017 8

∙> 76515195+ Exhibit Bible  8/25/2017 3 ∙> 76515196 + Tax Year 2012  8/25/2017 22 ∙> 76515197 + Tax Year 2013  8/25/2017 12 ∙> 76515198 + Tax Year 2014  8/25/2017 8 ∙> 76515199 + Tax Year 2015  8/25/2017 28 ∙> 76515200 + Tax Year 2016  8/25/2017 18

76519063* Exhibits Showing Lack of Consis tency, Fraud, Falsification of Documents, Perjury, and Violatio n of Oaths Within the ARB, HCAD and Attorneys 8/25/2017 8

∙> 76519064* Exhibit 01  8/25/2017 3 ∙> 76519065 * Exhibit 02  8/25/2017 22 ∙> 76519066 * Exhibit 03  8/25/2017 12 ∙> 76519067 * Exhibit 04  8/25/2017 8 ∙> 76519068 * Exhibit 05  8/25/2017 28 ∙> 76519069 * Exhibit 06  8/25/2017 18 ∙> 76519070** Exhibit 07  8/25/2017 10 75111189 Affidavit of Indigence  5/16/2017 6 * records are a duplicate of the records with a + ** this record is actually title d Tax Year 2017 and should have been included under document 76515201
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHANCY MALLORY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2458

[October 17, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin S. Fein, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 14006917 CF10A.

Chancy Mallory, Bristol, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

 Dismissed. See Oser v. State, 699 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

GERBER, C.J., LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
## U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f App eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it
No. 08-2110 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v . NELIZA FIGUEROA-CARTAGENA, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on July 16, 2010, is amended as follows: On page 41, line 14 of footnote 27: replace "Maj. Op. at 9 n.7." with "Maj. Op. at 9 n.9."
#### In the Matter of Joseph B., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 893]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about May 3, 2012, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the first degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 33 months, including 12 months to be served in a secure facility and 12 months to be served in a residential facility, with no credit for time served, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in ordering restrictive placement pursuant to Family Court Act § 353.5. Since appellant committed a designated felony act, the guidelines for restrictive placement set forth in Family Court Act § 353.5 (5) applied, as opposed to the least restrictive available alternative standard *(see*Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]; *Matter of Michael R.,*223 AD2d 465 [1st Dept 1996]). This disposition was warranted by, among other things, appellant’s predatory behavior and his history of recidivism and violence *(see e.g. Matter of*
      *502
      *Malik H.,*107 AD3d 447 [1st Dept 2013]). Although a psychiatrist and probation officer who evaluated appellant recommended against restrictive placement, they nevertheless recommended that appellant be placed in a structured environment outside the community, and the court properly concluded that this would best be provided through restrictive placement *(see id.).*Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Freedman and Gische, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. NJ15-6-000]

Take notice that on December 17, 2014, City of Pasadena, California submits tariff filing per 35.28(e): City of Pasadena 2015 Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment Update to be effective 1/1/2015.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

*Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 7, 2015.

      ( print page 221)    
Dated: December 24, 2014.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-30794 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 20

- 00540

- CV

In re J. C.

ORIGINA L PROCEEDING FROM BURNET COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator J.C. 1 filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the trial

court ’ s t e mporary order appointing t he Department of Family and Protect ive Ser vices as

temporary managing conservator of her child. After considering the petition

, the Department ’ s

response, and the record, we deny the pet ition

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8 ( a)

.

___________________ _______________________ Edward Smith, Justice

Before Ch ief Justice Byrne and Justices Baker and S m ith

File d: January 13, 2021

1 We refer to relator by her initial s because the underlying proceeding involves her minor child

. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b).
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 6, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-344

Lower Tribunal No. F07-31687 

________________

Oscar R. Evans,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge.

Oscar R. Evans, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Evans v. State, 327 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).
#### In the Matter of Larry Galbreith, Respondent, v New York State Board of Parole, Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 696]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole dated June 19, 2007, denying the petitioner’s application *to*be released to parole, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Alessandro, J.), dated May 29, 2008, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter to the New York State Division of Parole for a new hearing.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

A parole determination may be set aside only where the parole board’s determination to deny an early release evinced “irrationality bordering on impropriety” *(Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]; *see Matter of Silmon v Travis,*95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000]; *cf. Matter of Lu Po-Yen v Dennison,*28 AD3d 770, 771 [2006]). The burden is on the petitioner to make a convincing demonstration of entitlement to such relief *(see Matter of McLain v New York State Div. of Parole,*204 AD2d 456 [1994]). The petitioner failed to satisfy that burden here.

The Supreme Court determined that the New York State Board of Parole (hereinafter the Board) erred by not consider*732ing the sentencing minutes because those minutes contained a recommendation by the sentencing court *(see*Executive Law § 259-i [1] [a]; *Matter of Edwards v Travis,*304 AD2d 576 [2003]). Examination of those minutes, however, reveals that the sentencing court made no recommendation. Under the circumstances here, the Board’s failure to consider the sentencing minutes did not prejudice the petitioner *(see Matter of Schettino v New York State Div. of Parole,*45 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2007]).

Review of the hearing transcript and the Board’s written decision reveals that the Board considered the proper factors and adequately set forth its reasons for denying the petitioner’s application for release *(see Matter of Siao-Pao v Dennison,*11 NY3d 777, 778 [2008]). Consequently, the Board’s determination does not exhibit “irrationality bordering on impropriety” *(Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*50 NY2d at 77). Spolzino, J.E, Fisher, Miller and Garni, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2513 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2513

To require that in a notice of proposed rulemaking for a new rule, the 
 notice shall identify three rules which the agency intends to repeal.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2023

  Mr. Posey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require that in a notice of proposed rulemaking for a new rule, the 
 notice shall identify three rules which the agency intends to repeal.

    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 ``Cutting Unnecessary Red Tape and 
Bureaucracy Act'' or the ``CURB Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO REPEAL THREE RULES BEFORE MAKING A NEW RULE.

    Section 553(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
            ``(4) in the case of a notice of proposed rule making for a 
        new rule, except in the case of a new rule which is required by 
        statute, an identification of three rules that the agency 
        intends to repeal, including the date on which the agency began 
        the rule making process in order to repeal such rules.''.
                                 <all>
```