alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 92 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 1194
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 92 Filed 03/19/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 1195
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 92 Filed 03/19/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 1196
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 92 Filed 03/19/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 1197
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 92 Filed 03/19/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 1198
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 92 Filed 03/19/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 1199
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 92 Filed 03/19/13 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 1200
#### In re WISEMAN et al.

(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

May 23, 1903.)

No. 1,321.

1. Bankruptcy—Partnership or Individual Debt.

An indebtedness contracted by a member of a partnership individually cannot be converted into a firm obligation by its entry on the books as such without the creditor’s knowledge, or by the making of payments thereon by firm checks, so as to preclude the creditor from proving it against the estate of the individual partner in bankruptcy.

In Bankruptcy. On certificate from referee concerning claim of Ellen McGill.

Rudolph M. Schick, for claimant.

J. Barton Rettew, for trustee.

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

I regret to say that I find myself unable to agree with the learned referee in his finding of facts in this case. I have read the testimony with care, and it seems to me to establish clearly the fact that the agreement in controversy was originally made with John Wiseman individually, and not with the firm of Wiseman & Wallace. This being so, of course it could not become an obligation of the firm unless Mrs. McGill assented thereto. The firm could not be substituted as her debtor in place of John Wiseman unless she agreed to the change, and there is-no evidence that she ever made any such agreement. It is true that the amount due her was entered upon the books of the firm, and that the monthly payments were made by checks of the firm out of partnership funds, but obviously these facts could not of themselves change the character of the debt. It is not shown that she knew of the entry upon the books, and certainly it could make no difference to her from what source the monthly payments were made. The testimony leaves me in no doubt, therefore, that Mrs. McGill is entitled to make her claim against the individual estate of John Wiseman.

Concerning the monthly payments, I agree with the learned referee that they were not made as interest, and are, therefore, not obnoxious to the charge of usury. In this respect the report of the referee is confirmed, but his disallowance of Mrs. McGill’s claim against, the individual estate of John Wiseman must be disapproved.
# Indian and Native Alaskan
#### Parker *v.*The State.

Atkinson, J. — 1. An indictment for assault with intent to murder, which charges that the accused with a pistol, the same being a weapon likely to produce death, assaulted a named person and did then and there shoot and wound that person with the intent to kill and murder him, avers by necessary implication that the pistol was in fact loaded, and the omission to state in terms that it was loaded is not indispensable to the sufficiency of the indictment. Consequently, there was no error in overruling a demurrer to the indictment, on the ground that it did not allege that the pistol was “ loaded with powder and leaden balls”; nor in overruling a motion in arrest of judgment, based upon the same ground.

2. Upon the trial of an indictment for assault with intent to murder, alleged to have been committed by shooting another with a pistol, a verdict finding the accused “ guilty of shooting another *”*is not void for uncertainty. Its reasonable intendment and meaning is, that the accused was guilty of the offense of shooting at another, not in his own defense nor under other circumstances of justification.

February 5, 1895.

Indictment for assault to murder. Before Judge Fish. Sumter superior court. November term, 1894.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*483L. J. Blalock and W. P. Wallis, for plaintiff in error. J. M. DuPree, solicitor-general, by Pelder & Davis, *contra.*
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1707]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice of Agency Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 
10 a.m. on Tuesday, January 27, 2009, to consider the following 
matters:
    Summary Agenda: No substantive discussion of the following items is 
anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a 
member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the 
discussion agenda.
    Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' meetings.
    Discussion Agenda:
    Memorandum and resolution re: Proposed Rule for Interest Rate 
Restrictions for Institutions that are Less than Well-Capitalized.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule on Processing Deposit 
Accounts in the Event of an Insured Depository Institution Failure.
    The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of 
the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    This Board meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet and 
subsequently made available on-demand approximately one week after the 
event. Visit http://www.vodium.com/goto/fdic/boardmeetings.asp to view 
the event. If you need any technical assistance, please visit our Video 
Help page at: http://www.fdic.gov/video.html.
    The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign 
language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees 
needing such assistance should call (703) 562-6067 (Voice or TTY), to 
make necessary arrangements.
    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be 
directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the 
Corporation, at (202) 898-7043.

    Dated: January 22, 2009.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-1707 Filed 1-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5009

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2004

Received 

AN ACT

To extend water contracts between the United States and 

specific irrigation districts and the City of Helena in 

Montana, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 5009 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Montana Water Con3 tracts Extension Act of 2004’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF WATER CONTRACTS. 

5 (a) AUTHORITY TO EXTEND.—The Secretary of the 

6 Interior may extend each of the water contracts listed in 

7 subsection (b) until the earlier of—

8 (1) the expiration of the 2-year period begin9 ning on the date on which the contract would expire 

10 but for this section; or 

11 (2) the date on which a new long-term water 

12 contract is executed by the parties to the contract 

13 listed in subsection (b). 

14 (b) EXTENDED CONTRACTS.—The water contracts 

15 referred to in subsection (a) are the following: 

16 (1) Contract Number 14–06–600–2078, as 

17 amended, for purchase of water between the United 

18 States of America and the City of Helena, Montana. 

19 (2) Contract Number 14–06–600–2079, as 

20 amended, between the United States of America and 

21 the Helena Valley Irrigation District for water serv22 ice. 

23 (3) Contract Number 14–06–600–8734, as 

24 amended, between the United States of America and 

25 the Toston Irrigation District for water service. 
3

HR 5009 RDS 

1 (4) Contract number 14–06–600–3592, as 

2 amended, between the United States and the Clark 

3 Canyon Water Supply Company, Inc., for water 

4 service and for a supplemental supply. 

5 (5) Contract number 14–06–600–3593, as 

6 amended, between the United States and the East 

7 Bench Irrigation District for water service.

Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
EXHIBIT
32.1

Certification of American
River Bankshares
 pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 
regarding Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2017

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), each
of the undersigned officers of American River Bankshares, a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify
that:

| | 1. | The Company’s Annual
    Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Form 10- K”) fully complies with the requirements
    of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
| | 2. | Information contained in the Form 10-K/A
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                        



|Dated:
    November 7, 2018 | By: /s/ DAVID E. RITCHIE, JR.         | 
|--------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | 
|                            | David E. Ritchie, Jr.                
|                            | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                            |                                      
|Dated:
    November 7, 2018 | By: /s/ MITCHELL A. DERENZO           | 
|                            | Mitchell A. Derenzo                  
|                            | Executive Vice President and         
|                            | Chief Financial Officer              

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American River Bankshares and will be retained by American River Bankshares
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

8
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Rackspace Hosting, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), A. Lanham Napier, as Principal Executive Officer of Rackspace Hosting, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Rackspace Hosting, Inc.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                              
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: February 26, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ A. Lanham Napier                                                         
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | A. Lanham Napier                                                             
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer, President and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
Rules of Procedure   of the Investment, Finance and Audit Committee   of the Supervisory Board of Infineon Technologies AG
  § 1   General
   
 
 
 
 
 
 -1-




---



##### 



§ 2   Chairman; Composition; Compensation
     § 3   Duties of the Committee
       -2-




---



##### 



§ 4   Convening of Meetings
  -3-




---



##### 



§ 5   Adoption of Resolutions
       -4-




---



##### 



-5-




---



##### 



§ 6   Conflicts of Interest
  § 7   Obligation of Confidentiality
  § 8   Effectiveness
    -6-
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

30. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment

[Numbers in thousands]

Duration of unemployment

Total Full-time workers

Unemployed Percent distribution Unemployed Percent distribution

2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020

Total unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,001 12,947 100.0 100.0 4,843 10,222 100.0 100.0

Less than 5 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,086 3,708 34.8 28.6 1,516 2,762 31.3 27.0

5 to 14 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,789 4,728 29.8 36.5 1,459 3,656 30.1 35.8

5 to 10 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,216 3,204 20.3 24.7 977 2,440 20.2 23.9

11 to 14 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572 1,525 9.5 11.8 482 1,216 10.0 11.9

15 weeks and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,126 4,511 35.4 34.8 1,868 3,804 38.6 37.2

15 to 26 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860 2,516 14.3 19.4 746 2,059 15.4 20.1

27 weeks and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,266 1,995 21.1 15.4 1,122 1,745 23.2 17.1

27 to 51 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504 1,267 8.4 9.8 447 1,104 9.2 10.8

52 weeks and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762 728 12.7 5.6 675 642 13.9 6.3

Average (mean) duration, in weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6 16.5 – – 23.4 17.5 – –

Median duration, in weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 9.7 – – 10.1 10.3 – –

NOTE: Full-time workers are unemployed persons looking for full-time work (35 hours or more per week) or on layoff from full-time jobs. Updated population controls are

introduced annually with the release of January data. Dash indicates no data or data that do not meet publication criteria (values not shown where base is less than

35,000).

1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of  Organic  Soils.com, Inc. a Nevada
corporation  (the  "Company"),  on  Form  10-KSB  for  the  annual period ending
December  31,  2003  as  filed  with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"),  I, Ray L. Smith, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of  the  Company,  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002,  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350),  that  to  my  knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934  (15  U.S.C.  78m  or  78o(d));  and

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



                                        By: /s/ Ray  L.  Smith
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Ray  L.  Smith
                                        Chief  Executive  Officer  and
                                        Chief  Financial  Officer
Date: May 19, 2004
Exhibit 10.1

                                     RELEASE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Patrick Corkery ("CORKERY"), for good and
valuable consideration, including but not limited to the consummation of a share
purchase agreement among O'Flynn, Patrick Corkery, GOFF, Corp. ("GOFF") and
Warwick Calasse, in respect to the sale of shares of GOFF, the receipt and
sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, agrees as follows:

1. Corkery hereby remises, releases and forever discharges GOFF and its assigns,
employees and servants, and, where applicable, the executors, administrators,
successors and assigns from any and all manner of action and actions, cause and
causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, claims, demands and
obligations whatsoever, at law or in equity, which Corkery may have had or now
have or which her assigns, receivers, receiver-managers, trustees, affiliates,
and, where applicable, the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
assigns of his hereafter can, shall or may have existing up to the present time
by reason of any matter cause or thing whatsoever relating to or arising out of
the relationship between the Corkery and GOFF relating to, arising out of or in
connection with any and all dealings between the parties to the date hereof.

2. Notwithstanding the above provision and for greater clarification, this
Release does not apply to any claims that may arise after the date of this
Release.

3. It is understood and agreed that Corkery shall not commence or continue any
claims or proceedings against anyone in respect of anything hereby released
which may result in a claim or proceedings against GOFF. If any such claim or
proceeding results in any claim or proceeding against GOFF, then the party
bringing such claim or proceeding shall indemnify and save harmless the other
party from all resulting liabilities, obligations and costs.

4. Corkery hereby represents that he is the only party entitled to the
consideration expressed in this Release, and has not assigned any right of
action released hereby to any other firm, corporation or person.

5. Corkery acknowledges that he has read this document and fully understands the
terms of this Release, and acknowledges that this Release has been executed
voluntarily after either receiving independent legal advice, or having been
advised to obtain independent legal advice and having elected not to do so.

6. This Release
is governed by the laws of Nevada, and the parties attorn to the jurisdiction of
the Courts of Nevada with regard to any dispute arising out of this Release.

7. Execution and delivery of this document by fax shall constitute effective
execution and delivery. Execution of this document by a corporation shall be
effective notwithstanding that its corporate seal is not affixed hereto.

DATED for reference this day 26th of February, 2013.


/s/ Patrick Corkery
----------------------------
Patrick Corkery
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Thomas Carvel, Deceased. Pamela Carvel, Appellant; McCarthy Fingar, LLP et al. Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 902]

The issues raised on the appeal are advanced by the appellant in her capacity as executor of the estate of Agnes Carvel. Inasmuch as she no longer retains this status and the successor fiduciary has chosen not to pursue the appeal, we dismiss the appeal. Ritter, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JONATHAN JOHNSON , Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Appellee. § § § No. 89 , 202 4 § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 1602004456A (N) § §
Submitted: March 13, 2024 Decided: March 20 , 2024
Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR , Justices

. ORDER (1) The appellant, Jonathan Johnson, pleaded guilty in April 2017 to drug dealing and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony. On February
29 , 202 4 , Johnson filed this appeal from the Superior Court ’s October 27, 2017 order sentencing him for those offenses . The Senior Court C lerk issued a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. In response,
Johnson argues that the untimely filing should be excused because his counsel failed

to advise him of his right to appeal his conviction or sentence within thirty days. (2) Time is a jurisdictional requirement. 1 A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period in

1 Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).2

order to be effective. 2 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court

- re lated personnel, an untimely appeal
cannot be considered. 3 (3) Johnson has not demonstrated that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court

- related personnel. Moreover, his assertion that he was
unaware of the time limitation fo r filing an appeal does not explain the delay of more than six years in this case. Johnson is a frequent filer who has filed at least four other appeals

— and two proceedings for extraordinary writs

— in this Court since
2019 relating to the same underlying proceeding. We conclude that t he appeal must
be dismissed. (4) We have previously warned Johnson that if he conti nues to file appeals or writs making repetitive claims, he could be enjoined from filing future appeals or
writs without leave of Court. 4 We reiterate that warning here. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that the appeal is DI SMISSED

. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

__________________ Justice

2 D EL

. S UPR

. C T

. R. 10(a). 3 Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 4 In re Johnson , 2023 WL 116481 (Del. Jan. 5, 2023).
[904 NYS2d 638]

#### 88th Street Realty, L.P., Appellant, v William Maher et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

May 26, 2010

*11APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Borah Goldstein Altschuler Nahins & Goidel EC.,*New York City, for appellant. *William Maher,*respondent pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, dated July 11, 2008, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs.

Having failed to discharge his leasehold obligation to remove his licensee at the expiration of the lease term *(see Stahl Assoc. Co. v Mopes,*111 AD2d 626, 629 [1985]), the tenant remained responsible to the landlord for the licensee’s continued occupancy during the pendency of the summary holdover proceeding, viz., until the January 2, 2008 issuance of a possessory judgment in landlord’s favor *(see Fisher Ave. Realty Partners v Hausch,*186 Misc 2d 609 [2000]; *Rubin v Academy Props. Ltd. Partnership,*9 Misc 3d 132[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51624[U] [2005]). That there was delay in execution of the warrant of eviction and ouster of the licensee — delay occasioned in part by the landlord’s own inaction — cannot serve to extend the departed tenant’s liability for use and occupancy beyond the court’s merits determination formally severing the tenant’s own possessory interest in the demised premises. A contrary result could lead to the untenable result of rendering a former tenant perpetually liable for an unauthorized occupant’s postjudgment refusal to vacate, and that despite the tenant’s lack of recourse to remove the occupant or hasten the eviction process.

McKeon, EJ, and Schoenfeld, J., concur.
# field_descriptions

# qcew_fdi_msa_country_own_2012