alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Driver *v.*Driver *et al.*

.A wife, in her suit for alimony, having made a purchaser from her husband of certain land a joint defendant with him, and in her petition having prayed for both permanent and temporary alimony, and having therein attacked the conveyance of the land as fraudulent because made to defeat her claim for alimony and prevent its collection, and pending the suit a general judgment in her favor having been rendered against her husband for temporary alimony, without any adjudication touching her right to subject the land in •question for its payment, and an execution founded upon that judgment having been issued against the husband alone and levied upon some of the land in controversy, in resistance to which levy a claim was interposed by the other defendant in the alimony suit; and while this claim was pending a final decree in the alimony case having been rendered upon and in conformity with a verdict of the jury which found in favor of the wife as permanent .alimony a certain specific parcel of land, which parcel embraced ■one fourth of the particular land levied upon and claimed, and the verdict and decree being silent touching temporary alimony and touching the judgment therefor, the levy and the claim case, and 'being silent also as to the purchaser’s right and title, the result was, upon a proper construction of the verdict and decree in the light of the pleadings and of the extrinsic facts above recited, that the wife’s rightful claim against the land, as between her and the purchaser thereof, was limited to so much of the land as she recovered by her suit for alimony, and that the balance of it was the property of the purchaser, free from alimony, both permanent and ■temporary. Consequently, upon a subsequent trial of the claim ■case a verdict should have been rendered for the claimant as to - three fourths of the premises embraced in the levy, and it was error to direct a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff in execution. *Judgment reversed,.*

March 26, 1894.

Argued at the last term,

*450Levy and claim. Before Judge Janes. Haralson superior court. January term, 1893.

J. S. Edwards and *W.*E. Brown, for plaintiff in error,

Adamson & Jackson and S. L. Craven, *contra.*

The facts are sufficiently stated in the syllabus.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 52

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a parcel

of real property to Beaver County, Utah.

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

2

S 52 ES

1 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE TO BEAVER COUNTY, UTAH.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after the

3 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior

4 shall, without consideration and subject to valid existing

5 rights, convey to Beaver County, Utah (referred to in this

6 Act as the ‘‘County’’), all right, title, and interest of the

7 United States in and to the approximately 200 acres de8 picted as ‘‘Minersville State Park’’ on the map entitled

9 ‘‘S. 2285, Minersville State Park’’ and dated April 30,

10 2004, for use for public recreation.

11 (b) RECONVEYANCE BY BEAVER COUNTY.—

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsection

13 (a), Beaver County may sell, for not less than fair

14 market value, a portion of the property conveyed to

15 the County under this section, if the proceeds of

16 such sale are used by the County solely for mainte17 nance of public recreation facilities located on the re18 mainder of the property conveyed to the County

19 under this section.

20 (2) LIMITATION.—If the County does not com21 ply with the requirements of paragraph (1) in the

22 conveyance of the property under that paragraph—

23 (A) the County shall pay to the United

24 States the proceeds of the conveyance; and

25 (B) the Secretary of the Interior may re26 quire that all property conveyed under sub-
†

3

S 52 ES

1 section (a) (other than the property sold by the

2 County under paragraph (1)) revert to the

3 United States.

Passed the Senate July 26, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 52

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a

parcel of real property to Beaver County, Utah.
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934  Date of Report
(Date of
earliest event reported):
    
    February 18, 2005
 IMPERIAL
OIL LIMITED    Canada(State or other jurisdictionof
incorporation)
    

0-12014(Commission File Number)
    
    98-0017682(IRS EmployerIdentification
No.)111 St. Clair Avenue
West, Toronto, Ontario(Address of principal executive
offices)
    
    M5W 1K3(Zip Code)
  Registrants telephone
number, including area code:
    
    (800) 567-3776
    Check the appropriate box
below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the
filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following
provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 7.01
    
    Regulation FD Disclosure.Imperial Oil Limited (the Company) hereby furnishes the
information set forth in its News Release dated February
18, 2005, announcing 2004 proved oil and gas reserves and
additions to its resource base, a copy of which is included
as Exhibit 99.1.Item 9.01
    
    Financial Statements and Exhibits.(c)
    
    Exhibits.The following exhibit is furnished as part of this report on Form 8-K:99.1     News Release of the Company dated February 18, 2005.
 SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized. IMPERIAL OIL LIMITEDDate: February 22, 2005By:
    /s/ Brian LivingstonName:
    Brian LivingstonTitle:
    Vice-President, General Counsel
and Corporate SecretaryBy:
    /s/ Marilyn HendersonName:
    Marilyn HendersonTitle:
    Assistant Secretary
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Bradford, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 796]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), rendered October 9, 2007, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

GEORGE M. HADLEY

v.

JOEL MORANZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ELAINE MORANZ, JANA S. PALEY AND

SUPERIOR MOVING & STORAGE COMPANY, INC.

PETITION OF: JANA S. PALEY :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 536 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of April, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 15


To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
of Sears, Roebuck and Co.

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited
interim financial information of Sears, Roebuck and Co. for the 13-week
and 39-week periods ended October 3, 1998 and September 27, 1997, as
indicated in our report dated November 5, 1998; because we did not perform
an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the 13-week period ended October 3, 1998,
is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-64879, 2-80037,
33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825, 33-58851,
33-64345, 333-8141, and 333-38131 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Registration
Statement Nos. 33-58139, 333-9817, 33-64215, 333-30879, and 333-62847 of
Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp.; Registration
Statement Nos. 33-64775, 333-18591, and 333-43309 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.
and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Deferred Compensation Plan; Registration
Statement Nos. 33-57205, 333-11973, and 333-53149 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.
and the Sears 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (formerly, The Savings and Profit
Sharing Fund of Sears Employees); and Registration Statement No. 33-44671
of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears DC Corp.

We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the
Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report
prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7
and 11 of that Act.




Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chicago, Illinois
November 5, 1998
#### Branan Brothers *v.*Excelsior Shoe Co. *et al.*

It not affirmatively appearing from the record that the creditors who commenced their suits before the creditors’ bill was filed, the judgments thereon being rendered after the receiver was appointed, acquired any legal lien upon the assets which produced the money to be distributed under the decree on the creditors’ bill, inasmuch as this money may have been derived from choses in action on which an ordinary judgment at law would have no lien, or if it was the produce of goods sold by the receiver, those goods may have been sold before the judgments were rendered, so that no lien upon the goods had been acquired, this court cannot hold that the court below erred in distributing the fund *pro rata*among all the contesting creditors, instead of giving these judgments priority.

April 2, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Motion to distribute money. Before Judge Boynton. Hike superior court. March term, 1893.

*466R. L. Merritt, for plaintiffs in error.

Stewart & Daniel, S. N. Woodward, J. J. Rogers, S. J. Hale, J. F. Redding and E. F. Dupree, *contra.*

The firm assets of Murphy & Stroud were put into the hands of a receiver, under a petition in the nature of a general creditors’ bill. "When the cause came on for final hearing, and upon a motion to distribute' money in the receiver’s bauds, it was agreed that, as to the latter, the judge should determine all questions made,, without a jury. The money was claimed by various, creditors who obtained their judgments under the petition above mentioned, April 1, 1893. Branan Bros.,, who had obtained judgment on May 19, 1892, after the appointment of the receiver but upon suit begun before such appointment, insisted that the money should be first applied to their judgment, as it was of older date than those of the other creditors mentioned. The judge held that, after paying costs and attorney’s fees to certain mortgages older than any "judgment, the money should be prorated between all the judgments; and refused to give any preference to Branan Bros.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

s0615 

# Order

June 23, 2009

137658

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137658 COA: 286842 Wayne CC: 00-011514 LACY CHISOLM, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 1, 2008 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The application is also subject to dismissal because the defendant’s a pplication for leave to appeal was not filed with the Court of Appeals within twelve months of the March 5, 2007 order of the circuit court as required by MCR 7.205(F)(3).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Richard Beyer, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Freescale Semiconductor
Holdings I, Ltd., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the Annual Report), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) for the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.

Dated: February 6, 2009



/s/ RICHARD BEYERRichard BeyerChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11135]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 8, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. First Okmulgee Corporation, Okmulgee, Oklahoma; to acquire 
additional voting shares, for a total of up to 12.485 percent, of the 
voting shares of Coffeyville Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly 
acquire additional voting shares of Community State Bank, both in 
Coffeyville, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 8, 2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-11135 Filed 5-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
EXHIBIT 99.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 U.S.C. SETION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of  Global  Gold  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form  10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Drury J. Gallagher,  the Chairman,  Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer of the
Company,  certify  pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  following due inquiry,  that I
believe 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 result of operations of the
     Company.



Dated: July 11, 2003                     GLOBAL GOLD CORPORATION


                                        By: /s/ Drury J. Gallagher
                                            ----------------------
                                            Drury J. Gallagher
                                            Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                                            and Treasurer
#### Nowell *v.*The State.

Under the act of 1885 making it felonious to wreck or attempt to wreck any railroad train, locomotive or car, the actual wrecking, if accomplished by any illegal act tending to produce such a disaster, would be a crime; but in order to constitute a criminal attempt where no wrecking ensues, an intention or purpose to wreck is essential. The evidence in the present case being wholly insufficient to establish the existence of such intent or purpose, although the act done by the accused was unlawful, meddlesome, mischievous and grossly improper, the verdict was unwarranted under a right construction of the law, and the court erred in not granting a new trial. *Judgment reversed.*

April 16, 1894.

Indictment for attempting to wreck a railroad train. Before Judge Richard H. Clark. DeKalb superior court. August term, 1893.

The evidence for the State showed, that the accommodation train on the Georgia railroad passed Decatur with six passenger-coaches. The two rear coaches had been provided with air-brakes but these were not in working order at the time. These two coaches were coupled together and to the other coaches with the Janney coupler, which is worked with levers. After the train passed Decatur and while it was still in DeKalb county and on an upgrade (which made the levers more difficult to move), the two rear coaches were uncoupled by the defendant by pulling the lever of the coupling. The train left Atlanta only twenty minutes ahead of a freight-train. The testimony for the defendant was to the effect, that he either did not take hold of the lever at all, or did so in attempting to steady himself; that the *589couplers were interfered with by another or others; and that sometimes such couplers became uncoupled without using the levers.

J. W. Arnold and G. W. Gleaton, for plaintiff in error. J. S. Candler, solicitor-general, *contra.*
EX-35.1
(logo) NAVY FEDERAL Credit Union

Wells Fargo Bank MN., N.A.
Corporate Trust Services
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045-1951

Annual Statement on Compliance

Pursuant to the Seller/Servicer Agreement dated June 14, 2002, by and between
Navy Federal Credit Union (the "Company") and Charlie Mac, LLC (the "Purchaser")
as amended (the "Agreement"), the undersigned officer of the Company hereby
certifies the following for the 2007 calendar year:

A.   A review has been made of the Company's activities during the preceding
     calendar year under the officer's supervision.

B.   To the best of the officer's knowledge based on the review, the Company has
     fulfilled all obligations throughout the preceding calendar year according
     to the Agreement.

Any capitalized term used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed
thereto in the Agreement.

Certified By:
/s/ Charles E. Stewart
Name: Charles E. Stewart
Title: Vice President
Date: March 10, 2008



PO Box 3000 Merrifield VA 22119-3000


(page)


Appendix A

Listing of applicable trusts (administered by Wells Fargo) and backed by loans
serviced by Navy Federal Credit Union

1. HT 2004-1, aka CMAC 2004-1
2. CHT 2004-2 aka CMAC 2004-2
3. CMLTI 2004-HE1
4. CSFB 2005-4
5. CSFB 2005-5
6. CSFB 2005-7
7. CSFB 2005-8
8. CSFB 2005-9
9. CSMC 2006-1
10. JPL 2006-A6
11. JPMMT 2005-S3
12. JPMMT 2006-A6
13. JPMMT 2006-S1
14. JPMMT 2006-S2
15. JPMMT 2006-S4
16. MAL 2005-5
17. MARM 2005-8
18. MASTR 2005-2
19. PRM 2003-3
20. PRM 2005-1
21. PRM 2005-2
22. PRM 2005-5
23. HBV 2007-4
24. JPMMT 2007-S2
25. RBSGC 2007-B

2
#### State v. Hendricks

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 150

No. 087P07

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA05-1465)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Purported Appeal

3. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. _

2. Allowed 03/08/07

3. Denied 03/08/07
#### Shawn Green, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

Submitted May 18, 2009;

decided June 25, 2009

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*12 NY3d 702 (2009)].

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.