alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 12,341.

#### Ernst *v.*Eldred.

Decided May 27, 1929.

Rehearing denied June 17, 1929.

Mr. W. K. Ramsey, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. E. L. Brock, Mr. John P. Akolt, Mr. E. E. Campbell, Mr. Milton Smith, Jr., for defendant in error.

*In Department.*

Mr. Justice Adams

delivered the opinion of the court.

Action in mandamus, brought by Ada Ernst in the district court, to compel the judge and acting clerk of the county court of Fremont county, to issue execution on a judgment theretofore obtained in said county court. The cause is here for the second time. *Ernst v. Eldred,*80 Colo. 425, 252 Pac. 357. It was reversed and remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the alternative writ and proceed with the case. The district *126court obeyed , our direction,. issues "were joined, and the cause proceeded to- trial. The court found that.certain personal property involved had been returned to Mrs. Ernst after the judgment in the county court, and before the commencement of the mandamus proceedings in the district court. Judgment was accordingly entered in favor of respondent Eldred and against petitioner Ernst, that the latter take nothing, and that the alternative writ be dismissed, which was accordingly done. Mrs. Ernst brings error and has applied for a supersedeas.

Eldred’s counsel has filed a motion that the writ of error be dismissed, on the ground, among other things, that it was not brought within one year from the rendition of the judgment complained of, as required by our rule 18.

As much of the rule referred to as is applicable to the present motion, reads, “A writ of error shall not be brought after the expiration of one year from the rendition of the judgment complained of; * * **”*

Judgment was rendered on July 8, 1927. The writ of error was brought on March 30, 1929. It follows that the motion to dismiss is well taken, and it will be granted. *Snider v. Ostrander,*62 Colo. 99, 100, 160 Pac. 195.

Other reasons are assigned for dismissal, but it is unnecessary to discuss them. ’ '

Writ dismissed.

Mr. Chief Justice Whitford, Mr. Justice At.ter and Mr. Justice Campbell concur.
DONALD F. KING (VSB No. 23125) 

Counsel for Chapter 7 Trustee

ODIN FELDMAN & PITTLEMAN PC

1775 Wiehle Avenue, Suite 400

Reston, Virginia 20190

Phone: 703-218-2116

Fax: 703-218-2160

Email: donking@ofplaw.com

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

In re: *

*

CARICO, Connie Sue, * Case No. 19-11757-KHK

* Chapter 7

Debtor. *

TRUSTEE’S OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION

Donald F. King, the Chapter 7 trustee in the above captioned case (“Trustee”), by 

counsel, files this objection to exemption claimed by Connie Sue Carico (“Debtor”), and, in 

support thereof, states as follows:

1. The Debtor filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 on May 28, 2019. 

2. The Trustee is the duly qualified and acting Chapter 7 trustee for this estate. 

3. The meeting of creditors under 11 U.S.C. § 341 was concluded on June 27, 

2019. 

Objection to Exemption Under Va. Code Ann. §§ 55-20.2 and 55-37

4. According to the Debtor’s Schedule C filed with this Court and the 

Homestead Deed filed by the Debtor in the Prince William County land records, the Debtor

claims a tenancy-by-the-entireties (“T-by-E”) exemption pursuant to Va. Code Ann. §§ 55-20.2 

and 55-37 in real property located at 3408 Fitchburg Court, Woodbridge, VA 22193 (the 

“Property”).

5. According to the deed provided to the Trustee, it appears that the Debtor 

originally owned the Property in her individual name, then conveyed the Property by Deed of 

Case 19-11757-KHK Doc 18 Filed 07/29/19 Entered 07/29/19 17:54:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
2

Gift (i.e., without consideration) to herself and her spouse, Donna M. Sanderson, and then 

subsequently encumbered the Property with a new mortgage, within two (2) years prior to the 

bankruptcy filing, in order to create a T-by-E exemption and otherwise shield any equity that she 

had in the Property. The Trustee believes the transfer of the Property is avoidable under 11 

U.S.C § 548.

6. Accordingly, the Trustee objects to the Debtor’s claim of exemption under Va. 

Code Ann. §§ 55-20.2 and 55-37 as to the Property.

WHEREFORE, Donald F. King, Trustee, by counsel, requests that this Court 

disallow the attempted T-by-E exemption claimed by the Debtor in the Property and provide such 

further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

DONALD F. KING, TRUSTEE

By Counsel

By: /s/ Donald F. King

Donald F. King (VSB No. 23125)

Counsel for Chapter 7 Trustee

ODIN FELDMAN & PITTLEMAN PC

1775 Wiehle Avenue, Suite 400

Reston, Virginia 20190

Phone: 703-218-2116

Fax: 703-218-2160

Email: donking@ofplaw.com

#4354246v1 31070/00001

Case 19-11757-KHK Doc 18 Filed 07/29/19 Entered 07/29/19 17:54:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
§ 75.730 Records related to grant funds. A grantee shall keep records that fully show: ( a ) The amount of funds under the grant;
( b ) How the grantee uses the funds;
( c ) The total cost of the project;
( d ) The share of that cost provided from other sources; and
( e ) Other records to facilitate an effective audit.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1880-0513) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
[45 FR 22497, Apr. 3, 1980. Redesignated at 45 FR 77368, Nov. 21, 1980, as amended at 53 FR 49143, Dec. 6, 1988]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 12,011

 11,436

 10,488

 11,200

 10,208

 10,481

 11,391

 11,194

 9,106

 7,508

 8,037

 6,777

 6,059

 5,634

 3,879

 2,529

 2,091

 2,686

 2,418

 2,699

 4,259

 7,424

 7,442

 7,170

 7,040

 7,854

 6,286

 4,957

 4,339

 3,912

 2,986

 2,173

 2,454

 1,726

 1,979

 1,479

 1,530

 2,178

 1,488

 704

 275

 308

 299

 280

 323

 322

 220

 216

 231

 212

 218

 279

 518

 310

 286

 437

 341

 314

 256

 249

 306

 277

 6,527

 6,971

 5,595

 5,967

 5,072

 5,309

 6,370

 5,531

 4,705

 3,530

 3,115

 2,775

 2,559

 2,551

 1,890

 1,291

 1,082

 1,348

 1,076

 1,080

 1,582

 2,804

 3,059

 2,964

 2,984

 3,159

 2,646

 2,239

 2,119

 2,035

 1,771

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 7, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

COLLINSVILLE BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear by T.D. ATF-463, 66 FR 42733, Aug. 15, 2001.

###### Editorial Note on Subpart C of Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart C of part 1 appear by T.D. ATF-416, 64 FR 49985, Sept. 15, 1999.

#### § 1.44 Automatic termination of permits.

No basic permit shall be leased, sold, or otherwise voluntarily transferred, and, in the event of such lease, sale, or other voluntary transfer, such basic permit shall automatically terminate thereupon. If any basic permit is transferred by operation of law or if actual or legal control of the permittee is acquired, directly or indirectly whether by stock ownership or in any other manner, by any person, then such permit shall be automatically terminated at the expiration of 30 days thereafter: Provided, That if within such 30-day period application for a new basic permit is made by the transferee or permittee, respectively, then the outstanding basic permit shall continue in effect until such time as the application is finally acted upon.
#### Dorothy Steiner et al., Respondents, v. Domenic J. Valentine, Doing Business as Valentine’s Express Company, et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present—Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 2,398

 3,028

 3,063

 1,482

 2,961

 2,469

 1,876

 1,668

 1,378

 1,514

 1,783

 2,184

 2,496

 2,838

 3,020

 2,536

 2,934

 2,556

 2,918

 2,655

 2,148

 1,631

 1,807

 1,640

 1,683

 2,133

 2,503

 2,896

 3,345

 4,529

 5,528

 209

 229

 271

 298

 271

 342

 376

 353

 316

 266

 261

 247

 266

 270

 303

 292

 255

 350

 382

 404

 332

 344

 313

 311

 303

 289

 274

 280

 293

 324

 344

 560

 665

 732

 443

 786

 720

 631

 564

 526

 464

 441

 481

 601

 748

 765

 583

 744

 816

 951

 894

 608

 574

 565

 595

 544

 565

 576

 645

 852

 1,186

 1,620

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 4, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 5,054

 5,446

 5,895

 6,021

 6,505

 6,838

 7,072

 7,277

 7,478

 7,495

 7,643

 7,774

 8,035

 8,362

 8,567

 8,485

 8,497

 8,870

 9,035

 9,209

 9,186

 9,196

 9,235

 9,366

 9,469

 9,553

 9,528

 9,425

 9,512

 10,115

 10,991

 361

 389

 421

 430

 465

 488

 505

 520

 534

 535

 546

 555

 574

 597

 612

 606

 607

 634

 645

 658

 656

 657

 660

 669

 676

 682

 681

 673

 679

 723

 785

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
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.
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
 ACTION: Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.
 SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the 
                        **Federal Register**
                        ) may be relied upon as “of record” notice that the Corporation has been appointed receiver for purposes of the statement of policy published in the July 2, 1992 issue of the 
                        **Federal Register**
                         (57 FR 29491). For further information concerning the identification of any institutions which have been placed in liquidation, please visit the Corporation Web site at 
                        *http://www.fdic.gov/​bank/​individual/​failed/​banklist.html*
                         or contact the Manager of Receivership Oversight in the appropriate service center. Dated: March 28, 2011. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Pamela Johnson, Regulatory Editing Specialist.
 Institutions in Liquidation
[In alphabetical order]
FDIC Ref. No.
Bank name
City
State
Date closed10350
The Bank of Commerce
Wood Dale
IL
3/25/2011


[FR Doc. 2011-7800 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1186

BRUCE L. HOFFMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District

Judge. (CA-97-315-1)

Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 10, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce L. Hoffman, Appellant Pro Se. Clifford Carson Marshall, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Bruce L. Hoffman appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his civil action. 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 affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Hoffman v. United States, No.

CA-97-315-1 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 8, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
(No. 6842

#### Springfield Mechanical Corporation, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 22, 1972.*

Springfield Mechanical Corporation, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Perlin, C.J.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Eating hints: before, duringand after cancer treatment: support for people with cancer.**
 
PDF | Mobi | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.3152:EA 8/2/2011
Item Number:0507-G-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000804423
 
February 10, 2020
EXHIBIT 31.1   CERTIFICATION  I, Xiaojing Yu, certify that:    1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of China Shen Zhou Mining & Resources, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2006;   2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;   3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;   4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have;   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 annual report is being prepared;      b. 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; and   c. 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   5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   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; and   b. 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/ Xiaojing YuXiaojing Yu
Chief Executive Officer
April 24, 2007
**Exhibit 21**

 

**LIST OFSUBSIDIARIES**

 

The following is a list ofsubsidiaries and Opta’s ownership percentage as of June 30, 2004:

 
| **Name  of Subsidiary**         | ** ** | **Percentage of  Ownership** | ** ** | **State of  Incorporation** | ** ** |
|---------------------------------|------------|------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------|------------|
| ** **                      | ** ** | ** **                   | ** ** | ** **                  | ** ** |
| Opta Systems, LLC               |       | 100                          | %          | Delaware                    |       |
| Correlant Communications,  Inc. |       | 62                           | %          | Delaware                    |       |

 

----
### [§1727. Repealed. Pub. L. 90–384, §1(a), July 5, 1968, 82 Stat. 292]

Section, act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 785, provided for a fine of not more than $50 for postage accounting violations.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Savings Provision

Pub. L. 90–384, §2, July 5, 1968, 82 Stat. 292, provided that: "Nothing in this Act [repealing this section] shall be construed to affect in any way any prosecution for any offense occurring prior to the date of enactment of such Act [July 5, 1968]."
### §931. Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons

(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess body armor, if that person has been convicted of a felony that is—

(1) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16); or

(2) an offense under State law that would constitute a crime of violence under paragraph (1) if it occurred within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

(b) Affirmative Defense.—

(1) In general.—It shall be an affirmative defense under this section that—

(A) the defendant obtained prior written certification from his or her employer that the defendant's purchase, use, or possession of body armor was necessary for the safe performance of lawful business activity; and

(B) the use and possession by the defendant were limited to the course of such performance.

(2) Employer.—In this subsection, the term "employer" means any other individual employed by the defendant's business that supervises defendant's activity. If that defendant has no supervisor, prior written certification is acceptable from any other employee of the business.

(Added Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, §11009(e)(2)(A), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1821.)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-41057 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:10-CR-649-1 BeforeJONES, ChiefJudge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, CircuitJudges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Manuel RodriguezSanchez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez-Sanchez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefand the relevant portions ofthe record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 21, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce ClerkNo. 10-41057

2 is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Exhibit 10.10


Chart
of Compensation Paid to Non-Employee Directors


 


	
  Cash
  Compensation for Directors

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Annual Retainer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  45,000

  	
   

  
	
  For Each Board or Committee Meeting Attended in Person or by
  Telephone

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,500

  	
   

  
	
  For Service as Chairman of the Audit Committee

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  20,000

  	
   

  
	
  For Service as Chairman of the Compensation Committee

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  20,000

  	
   

  
	
  For Service as Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance
  Committee

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,000

  	
   

  
	
  For Service as an Audit Committee Member

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  
	
  Per Day for Special Assignments

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Equity Compensation for Directors

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Annual Stock Option Grant upon Re-election to the Board

  	
   

  	
  10,000
  shares

  	
  * 

  
	
  Annual Restricted Stock Unit Award upon Re-election to the Board

  	
   

  	
  5,000
  units

  	
  *

  
	
  Stock Option Grant upon Initial Appointment or Election to the Board
  or Upon Ten Years of Continuous Service on the Board

  	
   

  	
  20,000
  shares

  	
  **

  
	
  Restricted Stock Unit Award upon Initial Appointment or Election to
  the Board or Upon Ten Years of Continuous Service on the Board

  	
   

  	
  10,000
  units

  	
  **

  







*The annual stock option grants and annual
restricted stock unit awards will vest ratably every three months over the
one-year period from the date of grant.


 


**The stock option grants and restricted
stock unit awards granted in connection with a director’s initial election to
the board or his or her tenth year of continuous service on the board (which
are granted in lieu of the annual grant to the person in that year) will vest
ratably every three months over the two-year period from the date of grant.


 


In addition to the compensation listed in the
table above, non-employee directors are reimbursed for expenses incurred in
attending board, committee and stockholder meetings.