alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Please use this button to print

& submit via fax to

(202) 632-0045

National Indian Gaming Commission

Sacramento Region

Attendee Information

Name (First & Last) Position/Title

Business Street address City/State/Zip

Business E-mail address

**All fields are required**

NOTE: Please use a separate form for each attendee

Business contact phone number

*include area code - numbers only please

Entity registrant represents

Tribe Information

Ext.

If you do not represent a Tribe/Tribal Casino/Tribal Gaming

Commission entity, please enter agency name above.

Please use this button to submit

via E-mail (Outlook or Internet

based e-mail)

or

For further information or questions, please contact:

Tribe Name

Regulatory Review Consultation

Spa Resort Casino - Palm Springs

 May 2, 2011

Rita Homa

Executive Assistant

1441 L Street, N.W. Suite 9100

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 418-9807

Consultation Registration Form
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1995
<CASH>                                       7,221,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,184,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,151,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               644,000
<PP&E>                                       4,480,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,005,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,780,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,674,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,587,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,005,000
<SALES>                                     17,841,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,307,000
<CGS>                                       11,813,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,656,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             554,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,349,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (474,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (875,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (875,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
        

</TABLE>
No. 5007.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### PIEDMONT TIN MINING COMPANY vs. SAM HEYMAN.

Carroll, Henderson & Carroll and H. G. McCall for plaintiff and appellee.

John Watt, L. A. Ducros for defendant and appellant.

DUFOUR, J.

In answer to this suit for the subscription price of shares of stock in the plaintiff company, the defendant urges that his subscription was obtained through the fraudulent misrepresentation by the corn*401pany’s agent, relied on by defendant, that Mr. Britten had subscribed for 500 shares.

May 2, 1910.

Rehearing refused May 16, 1910.

The defendant swears positively that the-misrepresentation was made, while the agent merely denies any recollection of the occurrence.

The question arises whether such statement is sufficient in law to avoid the contract.

We think not.

Fraud, as applied to contracts, is the cause of an error bearing on a material part of a contract, which may reasonably be presumed to have influenced the party in making it. There must be a design to obtain some unjust advantage to the one party or to cause an inconvenience and loss to the other, and if the deception causes neither inconvenience nor loss to the party alleging it, the contract will not be avoided.

R. C. C., Art. 1847.

This record does not show any false statement as to the financial status of the company, the value of the stock, or any other material fact directly connected with the subject-matter of the contract.

The statement that Mr. Britten had bought stock is collateral and extrinsic, and bears no relation to the character of the investment about to be contracted, either as to status or value.

There is no proof that the stock is not worth the price paid for it, or that loss and inconvenience have been suffered by the defendant.

He cannot avoid his contract.

Judgment affirmed.

Godchaux, J., takes no part.
Exhibit 13
**Certification Pursuant To Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)**
Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited, an Australiancorporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:
     The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2004 (the“Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.
Date: 25 November 2004 /s/ David V. MurrayName: David V. MurrayTitle: Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer
 

 

**Certification Pursuant To Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)**
Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited, an Australiancorporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:
     The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2004 (the“Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.
Date: 25 November 2004 /s/ Michael CameronName: Michael CameronTitle: Chief Financial Officer        .
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 90

John W. Dixon, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

Billie Dixon, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20210294

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial 

District, the Honorable Daniel J. Borgen, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Greg W. Hennessy, Williston, ND, for petitioner and appellant.

Billie Dixon, Grand Forks, ND, respondent and appellee.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

APRIL 28, 2022 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Dixon v. Dixon

No. 20210294

Per Curiam.

[¶1] John Dixon appeals after the district court entered an order discharging 

Billie Dixon as trustee of the Shirley A. Dixon Trust, closing the Trust, and 

concluding the court’s supervised administration of the Trust. John Dixon

argues the court erred in concluding as a matter of law that there was no 

breach of fiduciary duty by trustee Billie Dixon for failing to provide annual 

accountings to him, as required by the Trust agreement and contrary to our

prior decision in Dixon v. Dixon, 2018 ND 25, 905 N.W.2d 748. He further 

argues trustee Billie Dixon owes the beneficiaries reimbursement for waste of 

the trust funds.

[¶2] After an August 2019 bench trial, the district court made findings of fact 

and conclusions of law. “When analyzing findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

we look to substance rather than labels given by the district court[.]” Larsen v. 

Comm’n on Med. Competency, 1998 ND 193, ¶ 17, 585 N.W.2d 801. The court 

found Billie Dixon complied with the Trust’s terms to provide an accounting

and did not engage in improper conduct as trustee. The court also found she

did not misuse trust assets or make improper gifts of trust property. On the 

basis of the evidence at trial, the court found Billie Dixon had provided all of 

the necessary accounting records and no funds were misappropriated, which 

are questions of fact. After our review of the record, we conclude the court’s 

findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and summarily affirm under 

N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte
----

Exhibit 32.1 

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of mPhase Technologies, Inc., a NewJersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10Q for the quarter ended September30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,Ronald A. Durando, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. Section 1350), that tohis knowledge: 

1. 

The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

2. 

The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. 

/s/ Ronald A. Durando                               Ronald A. Durando Chief Executive Officer 

November 13, 2009 

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


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-D ("Issuer") for the period
ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies  with the  requirements of  section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the information  contained  in  the Report fairly  presents,  in all
            material   respects,   the  financial   condition  and   results  of
            operations of the Issuer.

      Dated this 13th day of August, 2002.

                              GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II-D
                              ("Issuer")

                              //S//Dennis R. Neill
                              -------------------------------------
                              Dennis R. Neill
                              President (Chief Executive Officer)

                              //s//Craig D. Loseke
                              -------------------------------------
                              Craig D. Loseke
                              Chief Financial Officer
# Event Summaries about Eating Disorders

-  Livestream Event: Let’s Talk About Eating Disorders with NIMH Grantee Dr. Cynthia Bulik  February 25, 2021  In recognition of National Eating Disorders Awareness Week, NIMH hosted a livestream event featuring NIMH grantee Cynthia Bulik, Ph.D. Dr. Bulik discussed signs, symptoms, treatments, and the latest research on eating disorders. Also, Dr. Bulik discussed some of the challenges that the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak has presented for individuals living with eating disorders and other mental illnesses. 
-  Twitter Chat on Eating Disorders  February 28, 2019  On Thursday, February 28, 2019, NIMH hosted a Twitter chat on eating disorders in recognition of National Eating Disorders Awareness Week. This chat covered the common types of eating disorders, treatment, current research, and how to find help.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6807

RODNEY T. ARNOLD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM E. GUNN, Director; SOUTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON

SERVICES; BOARD MEMBERS,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-96-1625-6-22AK)

Submitted: October 7, 1997 Decided: November 12, 1997

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney T. Arnold, Appellant Pro Se. Carl Norman Lundberg, SOUTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the

district court. Arnold v. Gunn, No. CA-96-1625-6-22AK (D.S.C. May

20, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF B.A.L.C,

A Minor Child. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00211

- CV

Appeal from the

388 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2014DCM5955 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on Appell ee’ s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction and concludes the motion should be granted and appeal should be dismissed for want

of jurisdiction , in accordance with the opinion of the Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal for

want of jurisdiction . Costs of this appeal are taxed against Appellant s

. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(d).

This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 11 TH DAY OF DECEMBER , 2019.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">SK Prime Medical Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Luther Brenor, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc., Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Miller, Leiby &amp; Associates, P.C. (Melissa M. Wolin of counsel), for appellant.Baker Sanders, LLC, for respondent (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Lizette Colon, J.), entered July 2, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action is granted.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. Defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action. </p><p>Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, defendant established that it had timely mailed initial and follow-up requests for written verification (<i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As defendant demonstrated that it had not received the requested verification, and plaintiff did not show that the verification had been provided to defendant prior to the commencement of the action, the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny the claim did not begin to run (<i>see </i>11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a]; <i>Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.</i>, 24 AD3d 492 [2005]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action is granted.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: May 18, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
THE STATE OF TEXAS 

### M A N D A T E

TO THE 406TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WEBB COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on June 17, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

Jose Isabel Martinez Hernandez, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04

- 13

- 00820

- CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2012CRU010

- D4

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on August 17, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6807
RODNEY T. ARNOLD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM E. GUNN, Director; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES; BOARD MEMBERS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-96-1625-6-22AK) Submitted: October 7, 1997 Decided: November 12, 1997 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney T. Arnold, Appellant Pro Se. Carl Norman Lundberg, SOUTHCAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Arnold v. Gunn , No. CA-96-1625-6-22AK (D.S.C. May 20, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-3)-1999
<CASH>                                         48,448
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,367,020
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,415,468
<PP&E>                                         44,105
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,124,195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,918,887
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,343
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,044,938
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,124,195
<SALES>                                        2,721,483
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,721,483
<CGS>                                          1,831,530
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  727,151
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             63,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                99,794
<INCOME-TAX>                                   15,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            84,794
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   84,794
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.26



</TABLE>
1

In 1991, Louisiana's legislature excluded franchise contracts from the scope of section 921,

see id. § 921(E) (West Supp.1993), but the parties executed the contract at issue in this case

before 1991. See Alexandria Anesthesia Serv. v. Firmin, 576 So.2d 1236, 1237 (La.App. 3d

Cir.1991) (Amendments to section 921 are not retroactive.). 

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 92-3728

Summary Calendar.

In the Matter of TASTEE DONUTS, INC., Debtor Tastee Donuts, Inc., Appellant,

v.

Linda Leaumont PRICE, Wife of/and Thomas L. Price, Appellees.

May 6, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before REAVLEY, JONES and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:

One question of law determines the outcome of this appeal: whether the prohibition against

covenants not to compete contai ned in LA.REV.STAT.ANN. § 23:921 (West 1985)1applies to

franchise contractsin the absence ofanemploymentrelationship between the contracting parties. The

district court held that the section 921 prohibition applied to covenants not to compete in franchise

agreements that create no employment relationship. The court only cited Fine v. Property Damage

Appraisers, Inc., 393 F.Supp. 1304, 1311 (E.D.La.1975) in support of its decision. No Louisiana

court hasfollowed Fine's discussion concerning the scope ofsection 921. But a Louisiana court has

held to the contrary: "[section] 921 applies only to persons in employee-employer relationships and

will not be extended to other relationships by judicial construction or interpretation." Simpson v.

Kelly Services, Inc., 339 So.2d 490, 495 (La.App. 2d Cir.1976), writ denied, 341 So.2d 1121

(La.1977); see also NAPASCO Int'l, Inc., Western Div. v. Maxson, 420 So.2d 1276, 1278-79

(La.App. 3d Cir.1982) (agreeing with Simpson as to the limited scope ofsection 921, but finding an

employment relationship); cf. Winston v. Bourgeois, Bennett, Thokey and Hickey, 432 So.2d 936,
940 (La.App. 4th Cir.1983) (Louisiana courts will examine the actual nature of the relationship

between contracting parties to decide whether section 921 applies, regardless of the contract form

or the contracting party's title.). This court has followed Simpson in deciding that section 921 does

not govern independent-contractor relationships. Taquino v. Teledyne Monarch Rubber, 893 F.2d

1488, 1497-98 (5th Cir.1990).

REVERSED and REMANDED.