alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 20,281.

#### Robert R. Fisher, et al., *v.*Carl H. Peterson.

(381 P. [2d] 29)

Decided April 29, 1963.

Mr. Paul Snyder, for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Bartholic and Bartholic, for defendant in error.

*In Department.*

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Moore.

The plaintiffs in error and defendant in error are owners of tracts of land in Douglas County, Colorado, which have a common boundary. The controversy which the trial court was called upon to determine involved the location of the true boundary.

It was the contention of plaintiffs in error that a fence, which admittedly was not located on the section line, had been recognized and acquiesced in for more *222than twenty years as the actual line separating the real estate of the parties. C.R.S. ’53, 118-11-1 to 12, contains the procedures established by statute for determination of disputed boundaries. 118-11-9 makes the following provision:

“Corners and boundaries established. — The corners and boundaries finally established by the court in such proceedings, or an appeal therefrom, shall be binding upon all the parties, their heirs, and assigns, as the corners and boundaries which have been lost, destroyed, or in dispute; but if it is found that the boundaries and corners alleged to have been recognized and acquiesced in for twenty years have been so recognized and acquiesced in, such recognized boundaries and corners shall be permanently established.”

Under the provisions of the above-quoted statute plaintiffs in error assert that they are entitled to have the line established in conformity with the location of the fence.

The trial court determined that the fence in question, although in existence since 1910, was not established to mark the boundary between the properties of the parties; that the true boundary was the section line between sections 9 and 10 as established by the survey of one Curtis; and that the fence in question had not been acquiesced in by the parties as the boundary line but was merely a “barrier.”

We have read the record to determine whether the above findings of the trial court are supported by the evidence, and have no hesitancy in saying that there is ample support for the conclusion of the trial court upon the facts as indicated by said findings.

The judgment of the trial court accordingly is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Frantz and Mr. Justice Pringle concur.
143


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15

THIS AGREEMENT made as of September 3, 1999

BETWEEN:

VIBRO-TECH INDUSTRIES INC., a corporation subsisting under the laws of the state
of Delaware, having a place of business at Suite 201-11240 Bridgeport Road,
Richmond, British Columbia V6X 1T2

                                (the "Company")

AND:

DR. FOO. LIN ZHOU, of Shantou City, Guangdong Province, China

                                    ("Zhou")

WHEREAS:

A. By an agreement dated August 25, 1998 Zhou assigned certain patents and
related technology to the Company in consideration that the Company issue to
Zhou or his nominee:

     (a)  2,000,000 shares on execution of the agreement of August 25, 1998;

     (b)  1,000,000 shares on September 1, 1999;

     (c)  1,000,000 shares on September 2000; and

     (d)  1,000,000 shares on September 1, 2001;

B. The Company is proceeding to register with the Securities & Exchange
Commission of the United States;

WITNESSES THAT the parties mutually covenant and agree as follows:

1.0 The Company covenants that it has issued in the name of Pioneer Wise, and
Zhou acknowledges the issuance of, the 2,000,000 shares issued on execution of
the agreement of August 25, 1998.

2.0 The obligation of the Company to issue the remaining 3,00,000 share to Zhou
is cancelled and voided without the payment of any amount to Zhou.

3.0 As Zhou modifies products that are the subject of patents, or develops new
products that are the subject of patents, the Company will agree from time to
time with Zhou about the consideration to be paid for such modifications of new
products.

<PAGE>

                                      144

4.0 The agreement of August 25, 1998 is in all other respects acknowledged and
confirmed as an agreement between Zhou and the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto on the
day and year first above written.

VIBRO-TECH INDUSTRIES, INC.


By: /s/ William ChowWilliam Chow, Chairman of the Board


Signed, Sealed and Delivered by Foo                           )
Lin Zhou in the presence of:                                  )

/s/ Chinese Character                                           /s/ Foo Lin Zhou
                                                              )     FOO LIN ZHOU

3007051104
§ 571.62 Approval of request. ( a ) The Bureau of Prisons makes a motion under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g) or 3582(c)(1)(A) only after review of the request by the Warden, the General Counsel, and either the Medical Director for medical referrals or the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division for non-medical referrals, and with the approval of the Director, Bureau of Prisons. ( 1 ) The Warden shall promptly review a request for consideration under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g) or 3582(c)(1)(A). If the Warden, upon an investigation of the request determines that the request warrants approval, the Warden shall refer the matter in writing with recommendation to the Office of General Counsel.
( 2 ) If the General Counsel determines that the request warrants approval, the General Counsel shall solicit the opinion of either the Medical Director or the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division depending upon the nature of the basis of the request. The General Counsel will solicit the opinion of the United States Attorney in the district in which the inmate was sentenced. With these opinions, the General Counsel shall forward the entire matter to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, for final decision, subject to the general supervision and direction of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General.
( 3 ) If the Director, Bureau of Prisons, grants a request under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g), the Director will contact the U.S. Attorney in the district in which the inmate was sentenced regarding moving the sentencing court on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons to reduce the minimum term of the inmate's sentence to time served. If the Director, Bureau of Prisons, grants a request under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), the Director will contact the U.S. Attorney in the district in which the inmate was sentenced regarding moving the sentencing court on behalf of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to reduce the inmate's term of imprisonment to time served.
( b ) Upon receipt of notice that the sentencing court has entered an order granting the motion under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g), the Warden of the institution where the inmate is confined shall schedule the inmate for hearing on the earliest Parole Commission docket. Upon receipt of notice that the sentencing court has entered an order granting the motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), the Warden of the institution where the inmate is confined shall release the inmate forthwith.
( c ) In the event the basis of the request is the medical condition of the inmate, staff shall expedite the request at all levels.
[59 FR 1238, Jan. 7, 1994, as amended at 78 FR 13479, Feb. 28, 2013; 78 FR 73084, Dec. 5, 2013]
#### § 91.50 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to inform grant recipients under the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive (VOI/TIS) Formula Grant Program of OJP's procedures for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et. seq.,* and related environmental impact review requirements.
### §430tt. Authorization of appropriation

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums, but not more than $722,000, as are necessary to carry out the provisions of sections 430pp to 430tt of this title.

(Pub. L. 87–134, §5, Aug. 10, 1961, 75 Stat. 336; Pub. L. 93–477, title I, §101(4), Oct. 26, 1974, 88 Stat. 1445.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1974—Pub. L. 93–477 substituted "$722,000" for "$115,000".
### §460hhh–1. Purposes

The purposes of this subchapter are to—

(1) preserve scenic, scientific, historic, cultural, natural, wilderness, watershed, riparian, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and other values contributing to public enjoyment and biological diversity in the Spring Mountains of Nevada;

(2) ensure appropriate conservation and management of natural and recreation resources in the Spring Mountains; and

(3) provide for the development of public recreation opportunities in the Spring Mountains for the enjoyment of present and future generations.

(Pub. L. 103–63, §3, Aug. 4, 1993, 107 Stat. 297.)
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 92976 / September 14, 2021

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced the temporary suspension of trading 

in the securities of the following issuer, commencing at 9:30 a.m. EDT on September 15, 2021 

and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 28, 2021:

 Calmare Therapeutics Incorporated (CTTC)

The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of the foregoing company due 

to a lack of current and accurate information about the company because it has not filed certain 

periodic reports with the Commission. This order was entered pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).

The Commission cautions brokers, dealers, shareholders and prospective purchasers that they 

should carefully consider the foregoing information along with all other currently available 

information and any information subsequently issued by this company.

Brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11, at 

the termination of the trading suspension, no quotation may be entered relating to the securities 

of the subject company unless and until the broker or dealer has strictly complied with all of the 

provisions of the rule. If any broker or dealer is uncertain as to what is required by the rule, it 

should refrain from entering quotations relating to the securities of this company that has been 

subject to a trading suspension until such time as it has familiarized itself with the rule and is 

certain that all of its provisions have been met. Any broker or dealer with questions regarding

the rule should contact the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC 

at (202) 551-5777. If any broker or dealer enters any quotation which is in violation of the rule,

the Commission will consider the need for prompt enforcement action. 

If any broker, dealer or other person has any information which may relate to this matter, they 

should immediately communicate it to the Delinquent Filings Branch of the Division of 

Enforcement at (202) 551-5466, or by e-mail at DelinquentFilings@sec.gov.
§ 801.3 Processing the claim. ( a ) *Will CSOSA/PSA contact you about your claim?* ( 1 ) If you have provided all necessary information to process your claim, you will receive an acknowledgement indicating the filing date (that is, the date CSOSA/PSA received your claim) and the assigned claim number. Refer to the claim number in any further correspondence you may have with CSOSA/PSA on the claim.
( 2 ) If you have failed to include all necessary information, CSOSA/PSA will return your claim to you with a request for the necessary additional information.
( 3 ) If your claim should have been filed with another agency, CSOSA/PSA will forward the claim to the appropriate agency and notify you of the transfer, or return the claim to you if the appropriate agency cannot be determined or if the transfer is otherwise not feasible.
( b ) *Who is responsible for offering settlement or denial on the claim?* The General Counsel is responsible for investigating the claim and, after consultation with PSA (if the claim is against PSA) and the Department of Justice when appropriate, determining whether the claim should be settled or denied.
( c ) *How long does CSOSA/PSA have to consider your claim?* CSOSA/PSA has 6 months from the date of filing to make a settlement offer or to deny your claim. If you amend your claim (see § 801.2(e)) or request that your claim be reconsidered (see § 801.4(b)(1)), CSOSA/PSA has an additional 6 months from the date of the amendment or the filing of the request for reconsideration to make a final disposition of the claim.
( d ) *Will appreciation or depreciation be considered?* Yes, appreciation or depreciation is considered in settling a claim for lost or damaged property.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-18-00420-CR

No. 02-18-00421-CR

No. 02-18-00422-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 1469469D, 1475883D, 1475881D

Before Meier, Gabriel, and Kerr, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

LAMON JOSHUA BATER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Lamon Joshua Bater filed a pro se notice of appeal “from the denial 

of his objections to his conditions of probation,” which the “trial court has 

ordered . . . to continue unchanged without a written order.” On September 26, 2018, 

we notified Bater of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the 

trial court had not signed a written order denying his requested relief, see State v. 

Wachtendforf, 475 S.W.3d 895, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015), and because we have no

jurisdiction to review an order denying a motion to modify the conditions of deferred 

adjudication community supervision, see Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1977); Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Bater 

responded to our notice, but instead of explaining why we have jurisdiction, he argued 

that we should issue a writ of mandamus against the trial court—but no mandamus 

petition is before us—or that we should “enter a judgment finding that [he] is not 

subject to sex offender counseling”—but that would effectively adjudicate the very 

issue that he raises on appeal.

1

 We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.2 See

Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f), 44.3.

Per Curiam

 

1Bater also asked us to accept the case “as habeas review,” but he must first file 

an application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. 

Ann. art. 11.072, § 2(a) (West 2015).

2Because we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, we take no action on 

Bater’s motion for stay and motion for bail pending appeal.
3

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: November 15, 2018
#### Watts v. Phenix Insurance Company.

Fish, C. J.

A lire policy on a storehouse recited that it was made subject to the following stipulations and conditions, among others: that the, entire policy should he void “if the interest of the insured he other than unconditional and sole ownership; or if the subject of insurance be a building on ground not owned by the insured in fee simple; or if any change, other than by death of the insured, take place in the interest, title, or possession of the subject of insurance (except change of occupants without increase of hazard), whether by legal process or judgment, or voluntary act of the insured, or otherwise.” When the. policy was issued the insured was the sole owner, in fee, of both the building and the land upon which it was situated. Subsequently, and without the consent of the insurance company, he sold and conveyed, in fee, to another an undivided one-half interest in the land upon which the building *718was situated, the deed reciting that the grantor reserved “full title to the storehouse now on said lot with the right to remove the same without let or hindrance from” the grantee. Such was the status of affairs when, during the life of the policy, the building was destroyed by fire. *Held,*that such sale and conveyance constituted such a change in tlie interest of the insured in the building as voided the policy.

June 30, 1910.

Action upon insurance policy. Before Judge Reagan. Butts superior court.

March 29, 1909.

*John R. L. Smith,*for plaintiff.

*Slaton & Phillips,*for defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 32

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


         In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Stone  Field  Management
Company,  on Form 10- QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  Dain Schult,  Chief  Executive  Officer and  Principal  Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         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.


Date: December 6, 2005

/s/ Dain Schult
Dain Schult
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


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
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.
### §450jj–4. Transfer of land

Where appropriate in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, he may transfer by lease or otherwise, to any appropriate person or governmental entity, land owned by the United States (or any interest therein) which has been acquired by the Secretary under section 450jj–3 of this title. Any such transfer shall be consistent with the management plan for the area and with the requirements of sections 100903 and 102901 of title 54 and shall be subject to such conditions and restrictions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the purposes of sections 450jj to 450jj–9 of this title, including terms and conditions which provide for—

(1) the continuation of existing uses of the land which are compatible with the Memorial,

(2) the protection of the important historical resources of the leased area, and

(3) the retention by the Secretary of such access and development rights as the Secretary deems necessary to provide for appropriate visitor use and resource management.

In transferring any lands or interest in lands under this section, the Secretary shall take into account the views of the Commission established under section 450jj–6 of this title.

(May 17, 1954, ch. 204, §5, as added Pub. L. 98–398, title II, §201(a), Aug. 24, 1984, 98 Stat. 1468.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 450jj–6 of this title, referred to in text, was in the original "section 8", meaning section 8 of act May 17, 1954, ch. 204, and was translated as reading "section 7" of such act, to reflect the probable intent of Congress, because section 7 related to the establishment of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Commission.

#### Codification

In introductory provisions, "sections 100903 and 102901 of title 54" substituted for "section 5 of the Act of July 15, 1968 (82 Stat. 356; 16 U.S.C. 460l–22)" on authority of Pub. L. 113–287, §6(e), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272, which Act enacted Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5 of act May 17, 1954, contained a limitation on appropriation authorization and a prohibition on expenditure of Government funds and was classified as a note under section 450jj of this title, prior to the general amendment made by Pub. L. 85–936, Sept. 6, 1958, 72 Stat. 1794.
#### § 902.7 Court action.

Pursuant to Section (c) of Article XI of the Compact, a decision by the Attorney General on an appeal under § 902.6 may be appealed by filing a suit seeking to have the decision reversed in the appropriate district court of the United States.
EXHIBIT 32

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


         In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Walnut  Valley  Ventures,
Inc.,  on Form  10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31,  2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         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.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


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
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.
!

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

#$%&#$&%&'%

%$$'%&'(%$&#$&))'&*)

$+$))$&#$&(
,
!

,	

	



(-!


.
	




	


(-!


.
	



&/
	0+/
(&1	!

	 !2	3

 		 		

	

	
$


!"#"$%&'()*+ +,%%-%&

# 4	
!5!
!5655/$!
56-!
,
!(#$%

&#$&%&'%%$$'%&'(%$&#$&))'&*)$+$))$&#$&(


!&1	!
,4	!!!6571	!
!-!
,4	!!!65

71	!
54
1		
 	!
,-56-!	 !	(!	

'))(!
!!	!
5#$$4!892
3	!/!! /!!
,
!

!54!65!	5!1	!
	! !
	!!
6  !1!5&1	!


! :18(9;;<(
4
/! 6
4	5 
1711!(=
(


	41-!
6  !5!-!	
!$%&'()*+ +,%%-%&


	4-
	566	

><;9?

Case 15-13395-BFK Doc 54 Filed 08/31/18 Entered 08/31/18 11:54:55 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
&  $  #&*)  '))(  !
!  !	  65  	
66  @!  !  !  14
	  
!  !

546	1	
6!
66! 14
	!!
.	14
4!1	!
!6
(
	/
-4		
(

!-!
 				5!  !


!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

:1(#$
.1 !41!

)%$&)	!4!5=


)!4.!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


	.5!	

B	B()	7

()	7


4
-(	-C
(

9

	
66%,1(D>;;


16(
9;<;<

=$D>88

;?;8

	


$
	!!

B	BA:

(:AAAAAAA

:

(:



6(0

>%6@

0.($1!;


!(=
9;>8

	


2-    (  )	7  !  /		 5/  : 



(:-
	%EB/
63

EAB	BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

$))

  B	B&/
	0+/
AAAAAAAAA

&/
	0+/


;;
	!$!$!?;;

%6@

(=
99?



2-()	7! /		5/

&/
	0+/
-
	%EB/
63

EAB	BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

><;9?

Aug 31 2018 /s/ Brian F. Kenney

Aug 31 2018

Case 15-13395-BFK Doc 54 Filed 08/31/18 Entered 08/31/18 11:54:55 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
4
616;9923!54
!

&5'
		-
B	,1 
664		
 
!	 1	1
!

!4
616;9923

B	B()	7


	


	





9>?)6.1



6
(=
99<9>

	




9>?)6.1



6
(=
99<9>

 	66-	!64!4
66,
!
B)		!/!:

(:(%!!5

-!	
&/
	0+/
(&1	!

><;9?

Case 15-13395-BFK Doc 54 Filed 08/31/18 Entered 08/31/18 11:54:55 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3
### §459i–6. State and local jurisdiction

Nothing in sections 459i to 459i–9 of this title shall deprive the State of Georgia or any political subdivision thereof of its civil or criminal jurisdiction over persons found, acts performed, and offenses committed within the boundaries of the seashore, or of its right to tax persons, corporations, franchises, or other non-Federal property on lands included therein.

(Pub. L. 92–536, §7, Oct. 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 1068.)