alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KATZ EXCLUSIVE MILLINERY, Inc. v. REICHMAN et al.

No. 7451.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Feb. 18, 1953.

'See also 107 F.Supp. 263.

*38Kemp, Koontz, Clagett & Norquist, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Brenner, Van Valkenburgh & Wimmell, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

In the above case the witness, Nathaniel J. Sharlip, is a certified public accountant. The issue is the existence of a partnership. It is asserted by plaintiff that there is such a partnership, and it is denied by the defendants.

The witness was asked if certain books of an acknowledged partnership reflected another partnership. Clearly this would be expressive of an opinion, and the books themselves, if otherwise competent, would be the best evidence. Objections to the question were properly made.

A second question was: “Have you also at the request of the partnership set up a set of books for the clothing operation at 1120 Walnut Street?” There is no reason why the question should not be answered, for the reason that while it is well settled that the declarations or admissions of one member of an alleged partnership are incompetent to prove that another person was also a member of the partnership unless made in the presence of the latter yet such declarations are admissible after a prima facie showing of partnership has been made by other evidence. Pryor v. Hale-Halsell Grocery Co., 10 Cir., 80 F.2d 995, loc. cit. 997. If the acknowledged partnership made a request for the opening of books at the place where a partnership is denied, this would be some evidence of a partnership within the rule.

Another question was whether the business conducted at 1120 Walnut Street was conducted at a profit or a loss. This would be clearly immaterial on the question of a partnership as claimed by the plaintiff.

Another question sought of the witness information whether he had been advised that the operation at 1120 Walnut Street was carried on as an individual enterprise or as a partnership undertaking. This would be hearsay testimony.

Another question was whether the contracting party, Dave Reichman, ever discussed with the witness how the operation was to be carried on at 1120 Walnut Street. Until there was evidence of a partnership this question was condemned under Pryor v. Hale-Halsell, Grocery Co., supra.

Another question, "Will you tell me what your first conversation was with Mr. Reichman in that regard?” Since a partnership could not he proved by the statements of an individual alleged partner, the question was properly objected to.

It would follow that the only question that should be answered is the one as to whether the admitted partnership had requested that books he set up for the clothing operation at 1120 Walnut Street. The witness should answer that question as it would involve the act of all parties defendant in the case.
r 

# O„GINAI IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 06-0544
IN RE PETITION OF MICHAEL JAMES JOHNSON FORREINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS IN THE BAR OF MONTANA ORDER

Michael James Johnson has petitioned for reinstatement to active status in the State Bar ofMontana. The petition states that on September 9, 2022, Johnson was placed on inactive status by the State Bar ofMontana pursuant to Rules 3B2, 5, and 12 ofthe Rules for Continuing Legal Education (CLE) for noncompliance with CLE requirements. Rule 13 of the CLE Rules provides that reinstatement may be granted by the Court upon "certification by the [CLE] Commission that the attorney has completed the minimum continuing education requirements." Thus, the Court will need additional information to consider the petition. Johnson must provide a letter or documentation from the Commission certifying Johnson's completion of CLE requirements for the reporting year(s) for which Johnson hasbeen placed on inactive status. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the petition ofMichael James Johnson for reinstatement to active status in the StateBar ofMontana is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis order to the Petitioner and the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this l9 day ofNovember, 2023. 

# FILED NOV 1 4 2023 Bowen Greenwooa Clerk of Ct:,:xeme Court State of Montano 

# ,,iff/#7

,g r ,\ ? ChiefJustice

e • 

# (4 -e/-2--/4- 11/14/2023

Case Number: PR 06-0544

# .94in 21,. Justices

2
EXHIBIT 21



SUBSIDIARIES AND JOINT VENTURE OF THE COMPANY





As of March 31, 2008, the Company discloses its position of ownership of

the following entities:







Charter/Joint Venture

Included in the                            ---------------------

Consolidated Statements    % Ownership       Place         Date

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

Homespan Realty Co., Inc.

("Homespan")                  100.0       Wisconsin     02/12/1959

Ecomm Group Inc.

("Ecomm")                     100.0       Wisconsin     06/24/1974

San Luis Estates, Inc.

("SLE")                       100.0       Colorado      11/09/1970

San Sebastian Gold Mines,

Inc. ("Sanseb")                82.5       Nevada        09/04/1968

Universal Developers, Inc.

("UDI")                       100.0       Wisconsin     09/28/1964

Commerce/Sanseb Joint

Venture ("Joint Venture")      90.0       Wisconsin &   09/22/1987

El Salvador



Not included in the

Consolidated Statements

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

Mineral San Sebastian,

S.A. de C.V.  ("Misanse")      52.0       El Salvador   05/08/1960
Exhibit 32

Section 906 Certification of Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer

                        GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION
           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 Quarterly  Report of Form 10-QSB of Global  Entertainment
Corporation  (the Company) for the fiscal quarter  ending  November 30, 2007, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
Quarterly  Report),  the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company each hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Quarterly  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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
          operations of the Company.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

Dated January 14, 2008


/s/ Richard Kozuback
-----------------------------------------------
Richard Kozbuack
President & Chief Executive Officer



/s/ James Yeager
-----------------------------------------------
James Yeager
Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the
Annual Report of Commerce Group Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (the "Report") for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code.

I, Sidney Sodos, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer of Commerce Group Corp., (the "Company"), hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   the Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended
     March 31, 2009, (the "Form 10-K"), 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.

Date: August 7, 2009                      /s/ Sidney Sodos
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Sidney Sodos
                                          Vice President, Treasurer
                                          and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>


                                        EXHIBIT 10.17



     WHEREAS, the Corporation has previously adopted the 1994
Long-Term Incentive Plan of Coltec Industries Inc (the "Plan");

     WHEREAS, the Plan is intended to meet the requirements of
Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code"),
and was drafted to comply with the then outstanding provisions of
proposed treasury Regulation 1.162-27 ("Proposed Regulation
1.162-27");

     WHEREAS, the Proposed Regulation 1.162-27 has been amended
and the Corporation now desires to amend the Plan to conform to
the provisions of paragraph (e)(2)(i) of the amended Proposed
Regulation 1.162-27; and

     WHEREAS, Section 11 of the Plan confers upon the Board the
right to amend the Plan at any time in whole or in part;

     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT

          RESOLVED, that, effective as of January 1, 1994,
     Section 6(a) of the Plan is amended by deleting the first
     sentence thereof and replacing it with the following:

            "The Committee shall grant Performance Units to
          eligible persons for a given Performance Cycle by no
          later than 90 days after the commencement of such
          Performance Cycle."

          RESOLVED, that each officer of the Corporation is
     hereby authorized, empowered and directed to take any such
     further action by and on behalf of the Corporation as such
     officer may deem necessary or advisable in order to effect
     the intent of the foregoing resolution.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CEO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  By:

/s/ Alan StockAlan StockChief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessie J. EPPS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-3256.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted March 22, 2013.

Decided March 25, 2013.

*607Jonathan H. Koenig, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jessie J. Epps, Beaver, WV, pro se.

Before DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge, JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge and DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Jessie Epps pleaded guilty to using a telephone to facilitate a heroin trafficking crime. See 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). In his plea agreement Epps waived the right to appeal his sentence. The district court sentenced him to the 48-month statutory maximum. See *id.*§ 843(d)(1). Epps filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer believes that the appeal is frivolous and seeks to withdraw under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Epps has not responded to counsel’s motion. See Cir. R. 51(b). We confine our review to counsel’s facially adequate brief. See *United States v. Schuh,*289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir.2002).

Epps has told counsel not to contest his guilty plea, and so counsel properly forgoes discussing the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the plea. See *United States v. Konczak,*683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir.2012); *United States v. Knox,*287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir.2002).

Counsel does consider whether Epps could argue that the district court (1) erred in calculating the proper guidelines range or (2) imposed an unreasonable sentence. But Epps’s broad waiver of his right to appeal makes this case frivolous. Because an appeal waiver stands or falls with a guilty plea, see *United States v. Kilcrease,*665 F.3d 924, 929 (7th Cir.2012); *United States v. Sakellarion,*649 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir.2011), Epps’s appeal waiver must be enforced. Moreover, Epps’s 48-month sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum, see 21 U.S.C. § 843(d)(1), and the court did not rely on any constitutionally impermissible factor when it imposed Epps’s sentence. See *Dowell v. United States,*694 F.3d 898, 902 (7th Cir.2012).

The motion to withdraw is Granted, and the appeal is Dismissed.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . A P - 7 6 , 5 9 8

E X P A R T E C H A R L E S W E S T , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . 2 0 0 6 - 1 0 0 5 - C 1 I N T H E 1 9 t h D I S T R I C T C O U R T

F R O M M c L E N N A N C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of three counts of ag g rava ted sexual a ssault a

nd he was sentenc ed to f

ifteen y ear s’ imprisonment in eac h count. The Tenth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. W

est v. State , No. 10-07-0010 0 -C R (T ex . Crim. App.–Waco, deliver ed De cembe r 3, 2008). Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rende red ineff e c ti v e a s s is ta

n c e b e c a u s e counsel failed to proper ly file a pe tition for discretionar y revie w after he promised Appli cant he would do2

so in this cause. Appellate counsel filed an aff idavit with the trial court. Ba sed on that aff idavit, the trial court has enter ed finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to p ro p er l y file a petition for discretionar

y revie w afte r he promised Applicant he would do so in this cause . The trial court recommends that relief be g rante d

. We ag ree . We find, there fore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petit i o n fo r d i s cretionary revie w of the judgme nt of the Tenth Court of App ea l s in Cause No. 10-07-00100- CR that aff irmed his conviction in Case No. 2006-1005-C1 from the 19 J udicial District Court of McL ennan County

. Applicant shall file his t h petiti o n fo r d i s cr et ionary revie w with the Tenth Court of Appea ls within 30 day s of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Deliver ed: J uly

27, 2011 Do not publish
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 657 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 657

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend to all veterans with a 
  serious service-connected injury eligibility to participate in the 
                   family caregiver services program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 4, 2015

Mr. Durbin (for himself and Ms. Baldwin) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend to all veterans with a 
  serious service-connected injury eligibility to participate in the 
                   family caregiver services program.

    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 ``Caregivers Expansion and Improvement 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION TO ALL VETERANS WITH A SERIOUS SERVICE-CONNECTED 
              DISABILITY OF ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN FAMILY 
              CAREGIVER PROGRAM.

    Section 1720G(a)(2)(B) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``on or after September 11, 2001''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 857.

#### Coy *v.*United States.

May 6, 1946.

*James E. Fahey*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General McGrath, Robert S. Erdahl*and *Beatrice Rosenberg*for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 21
                                                                      ----------
                            WELLCO ENTERPRISES, INC.
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                                                            Percentage of Voting
                             Jurisdiction of                 Securities Owned by
Name of Company              Incorporation                      Immediate Parent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wellco Enterprises, Inc.      North Carolina                          Registrant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ro-Search, Incorporated       North Carolina                               100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ro-Search International Inc.  Barbados, West Indies                     100% (1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mo-Ka Shoe Corporation        Delaware                                     100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(1) Owned by Ro-Search, Incorporated.

All  of  the  Registrant's   wholly-owned   subsidiaries  are  included  in  the
consolidated financial statements.




                                      -16-
<PAGE>
**Exhibit
23.2**
 
 **CONSENT
OF MOORE STEPHENS, P.C.**
 
 **CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
Dialysis Corporation of America on Form S-8, Registration No. 333-122455,
pertaining to certain stock options under the 1999 Stock Option Plan of Dialysis
Corporation of America, of our report dated February 18, 2005 (except for Note
16 as to which the date is March 15, 2005), relating to the consolidated
financial statements and financial schedule of Dialysis Corporation of America
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2004.
 
 /S/
      MOORE STEPHENS, P.CMOORE
      STEPHENS, P.C.March 29, 2005Cranford,
      New Jersey
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #15245 and #15246; NEW HAMPSHIRE Disaster Number NH-00038]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-4329-DR), dated 08/09/2017. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         07/01/2017 through 07/02/2017.
 DATES: Issued on 08/09/2017. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/09/2017. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         05/09/2018.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/09/2017, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Grafton. The Interest Rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500For Economic Injury:Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15245B and for economic injury is 152460. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Rafaela Monchek, Acting Associate Administrator, Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2017-17389 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P