alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### *Couchmans vs. Boyd.*

Covenant.

Case 104.

Error to the Nicholas circuit; H. O. Brown, Judge.

*Covenant. Construction. Rule at law. Chancery. Specific execution.*

May 5.

Statement of' the pl’tffs. oase'

instructi to\he jury,

Whencove-DaRtto con-onytiand’ u_p* ment ofUm purchase mo-sheriff, give* »right to the “°5gyya:n-?e’ of action *396without persona/ norice to covenantor.

*395Judge Underwood,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Boyd executed his covenant to Andrew and William Couchman, for the conveyance of a house and lot, “the title to be made when the purchase money is all paid.” The Couchmans were to pay $>1000, Christmas, 1823, and *$651*in March, 1825. All the purchase money having been paid and Boyd failing to convey, an action of covenant was instituted against him, to recover damages for his failure. On trial, the plaintiffs proved that they had paid the whole of the purchase money, but instead of paying it punctually, on the days fixed in the covenant, they had paid it to the sheriff afterwards, being coerced by law.

The court instructed the jury to find as in case of a nonsuit. We think, from an examination of the evidence, the instruction ought not to have been given.

We have no doubt that the proper construction of Boyd’s covenant, imposes a duty on him to convey the lot whenever the purchase money shall be all paid, whether before, at, or after the times fixed for pay-meat in the covenant, and having failed to convey, he is liable. But it is contended that the, plaintiff should have given Boyd personal notice of the payment of the money to the sheriff, before instituting their suit, and as this was not done, the instruction was proper. They were not required by law, to give such notice, *396The.sheriif was, by law, constituted Boyd’s agent, i<? collect and receive the money, and he, in accordance with the principles settled in the case of Keys vs. Powell & Co. 2 Marshall, 253, was bound to take notice of the payment of the money to the sheriff.

The tender of a deed, after suit, cannot affect the action at law.

*Mills*and Depew, for plaintiffs; *Crittenden*and *Triplett,*for defendants.

The execution and tender of a deed, after the institution of the suit by Boyd, to the Coachmans, cannot defeat their aption at law. If Boyd can bring himself under the operation of the principles recognized foe the specific enforcement of contracts, he may haver remedy in chancery, but common law tribunals cannot help him.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the verdict of the jury set aside for new proceedings to be had, not inconsistent with this opinion. The plaintiffs must recover their costs.
M. P. No. 79-471.

#### George C. Wood *v.*A. Marie Wood.

Mr. Justice Doris and Mrs. Justice Murray did not participate.

*George C. Wood,*pro se, for petitioner, *Gary Yesser,*for respondent.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
ex10-32.htm


Exhibit 10.32




March 27, 2013












Via E-mail and Regular Mail                                                      


Terry A. Tevis


tatevis@gmail.com


3972 SE Maryhill Place


Hobe Sound, FL 33455-8955



















Re: Second amendment to the Agreement (defined below).







Dear Terry:







Reference is made to that certain letter agreement dated as of August 16, 2012 (as amended, the “Agreement”) between Merisel, Inc. (hereinafter referred to, along with its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, successors and assigns, and each of their respective successors and assigns, as the “Company”), and you, regarding the terms of your employment as President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the Company, as such Agreement was amended by that certain letter agreement, dated as of  October 26, 2012, between you and the Company.







You and the Company hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:







1.           The paragraph of the Agreement entitled “Compensation” is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:







“Compensation.  From and effective as of March  8, 2013, the Company will pay you a monthly base salary of $12,500 (“Base Salary”) in accordance with the Company’s customary payroll practices.  In addition, for each month of your employment with the Company, you will be entitled to receive deferred compensation with a value of $7,500 per month (“Cumulative Deferred Compensation”), to be payable (hereafter a “Payment Date”) at the earlier of (i) December 31, 2014, (ii) the date on which your employment with the Company is terminated by you or the Company for any reason, with or without cause.  You will not receive additional compensation for your service as a member of the Board.”







Except as expressly set forth above, all other terms and provisions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.







The provisions of the paragraphs entitled “Governing Law”, “Jurisdiction; No Trial”, “Interpretation: Counterparts” and “Amendments” are hereby incorporated herein, mutatis mutandis, as if a part hereof.







Please indicate your acceptance of the foregoing amendment by signing below and returning a copy of this letter to the undersigned via hand delivery, electronic mail or facsimile.












                       Very truly yours,                                


 


 







                      Chairman of Compensation                                                      


                      Committee of the Board of Directors


 







Agreed and Accepted as of March 27, 2013:

















____________________________________


Terry A. Tevis
#### Celle Becker, appellee, v. Alfon E. Bahr, appellant.

Gen. No. 33,599.

Opinion filed December 31, 1929.

Harold O. Mulks, for appellant. No appearance for appellee. .

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
Exhibit 13.1

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

The undersigned, Richard Coglon, President and Secretary of Bradner Ventures Ltd., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	the annual report on Form 20-F of Bradner Ventures Ltd. for the year ended November 30, 2004 (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 results of operations of Bradner Ventures Ltd.

Dated: May 12, 2005

"Richard Coglon"		Richard Coglon 
President and Secretary
(Principal Executive 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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Bradner Ventures Ltd. and will be retained by Bradner Ventures Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 1218
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1218 appear at 66 FR 37118, 37119, July 17, 2001, and 71 FR 77245, Dec. 26, 2006.

§ 1218.11 Market or marketing. ( a ) *Marketing* means the sale or other disposition of blueberries in any channel of commerce.
( b ) To *market* means to sell or otherwise dispose of blueberries in interstate, foreign, or intrastate commerce.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCyclotron maser and plasma wave growth in magnetic loopsCyclotron maser and plasma wave growth which results from electrons accelerated in magnetic loops are studied. The evolution of the accelerated electron distribution is determined by solving the kinetic equation including Coulomb collisions and magnetic convergence. It is found that for modest values of the column depth of the loop the growth rates of instabilities are significantly reduced and that the reduction is much larger for the cyclotron modes than for the plasma wave modes. The large decrease in the growth rate with column depth suggests that solar coronal densities must be much lower than commonly accepted in order for the cyclotron maser to operate. The density depletion has to be similar to that which occurs during auroral kilometric radiation events in the magnetosphere. The resulting distributions are much more complicated than the idealized distributions used in many theoretical studies, but the fastest growing mode can still simply be determined by the ratio of electron plasma to gyrofrequency, U=omega(sub p)/Omega(sub e). However, the dominant modes are different than for the idealized situations with growth of the z-mode largest for U approximately less than 0.5, and second harmonic x-mode (s=2) or fundamental o-mode (s=1) the dominant modes for 0.5 approximately less than U approximately less than 1. The electron distributions typically contain more than one inverted feature which could give rise to wave growth. It is shown that this can result in simultaneous amplification of more than one mode with each mode driven by a different feature and can be observed, for example, by differences in the rise times of the right and left circularly polarized components of the associated spike bursts.Document ID19900013086Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsHamilton, Russell J.*(Stanford Univ. CA, United States)*Petrosian, Vahe*(Stanford Univ. CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 25, 1990Subject CategoryPlasma PhysicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:179862NASA-CR-179862Accession Number90N22402Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NSF ATM-87-05084CONTRACT_GRANT: NSG-7092Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900013086.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Donna B. Juliano, Appellant. Tory’s, L.L.P, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[776 NYS2d 913]

*865Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 26, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned from her employment as a legal secretary after the legal partner for whom she worked used profane language when reprimanding claimant about the unsatisfactory airport transportation claimant arranged for him. Although offensive, the record establishes that this was the only incident where the partner directed vulgar language at claimant, despite having admonished claimant about her job performance on other occasions. The record further establishes that a senior law partner apologized to claimant upon learning of the incident. It is well settled that criticism from an employer, even if perceived as unduly harsh or unfair, does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see *Matter of Penigian [Commissioner of Labor],*4 AD3d 603 [2004]; *Matter of Carlson [Commissioner of Labor],*307 AD2d 582, 583 [2003]). Here, given that the profanity expressed to claimant was a one-time occurrence and continuing work was available to claimant if she had not resigned, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause *(see Matter of Feng Yen Yang [Sweeney],*233 AD2d 656 [1996]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Exhibit 10.3


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


	$25,000.00	June 1, 2012


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned Maker
promises to pay to the order of LANTERN ADVISERS, LLC at such place as the holder of this Note may designate in writing to Maker,
the principal sum of Twenty-five Thousand and NO/100 dollars ($25,000.00), together with simple interest on the unpaid principal
balance from the date of this Note paid at the rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum. Principal and interest are due and payable
in lawful money of the United States of America.


 


Principal payments and accrued interest
are due as follows:


 


		·	Interest payments shall be due on the last day of each month;



		·	Principal shall be due on May 31, 2015.



 


This Note may not be fully or partially prepaid at
any time during the term of this Note.


 


If default occurs in the payment of any
amount due under this Note when due, the entire principal balance and accrued but unpaid interest under this Note shall at once
become due and payable, without notice, at the option of the holder of this Note. Any failure to exercise such option shall not
constitute a waiver of the right to exercise it in the event of any subsequent default.


 


Maker waives presentment, dishonor, protest,
demand, diligence, notice of protest, notice of demand, notice of dishonor, notice of nonpayment, and any other notice of any kind
otherwise required by law in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default, enforcement or collection of this
Note and expressly agrees that this Note, or any payment hereunder, may be extended or subordinated (by forbearance or otherwise)
at any time, without in any way affecting the liability of Maker. Maker agrees to pay on demand Payee’s reasonable collection
costs to enforce payment due under this Note.


 


This Note may not be amended or modified,
nor shall any waiver of any provision hereof be effective, except only by an instrument in writing signed by the party against
whom enforcement of any amendment, modification, or waiver is sought. This Note shall be governed by and construed according to
the laws of the State of Minnesota.


 


	 	MAKER:	 
	 	 	Poker Magic, Inc.
	 	 	By:  Joseph A. Geraci, II
	 	 	 
	 	PAYEE:	 
	 	 	Lantern Advisers, LLC
	 	 	By:  Douglas Polinsky
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Tao Minerals Ltd., (the "Company")
  on 10QSB for the period ending October 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Don Axent, Chief
  Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
  adopted pursuant to Section 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/ Don
AxentDon Axent

Chief Executive Officer(Title)

---
#### § 14.3 Objective.

The objective of the determinations made under part 14 is to provide maximum conservation, environmental, forestry improvement, and wildlife benefits to the general public from the operation of applicable programs.
Exhibit 32.2





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 Palomine Mining Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 his knowledge:



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 results of operations

of the Company.





Date:  September 14, 2006





/s/ Eugene Larabie

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

Eugene Larabie, Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Bioenergy, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 12, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vince M. Guest,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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





|Registrant            |     | UNIVERSAL
                           BIOENERGY, INC.
|--------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------
|                      |     |                                                     
|Date: August 26, 2011 | By: | /s/ Vince M. Guest                                  
|                      |     | Vince M. Guest                                      
|                      |     | Chief Executive Officer (Pinciple Executive Officer)
EX-4.80



 Exhibit 4.80 
 Trademark License Termination Agreement 
 This Trademark License
Termination Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into by and among the following parties on February 1, 2013 in Beijing: 
  

			
	 Party A:
	  	Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (the “Licensor”)
	 Address:
	  	
		
	 Party B:
	  	Beijing Baidu Netcom Science Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Licensee”)
	 Address:
	  	

 WHEREAS 
 1. Party A and Party B entered into a Trademark License Agreement (the “License Agreement”) as of March 1, 2004; 
 2. The Licensor is a wholly foreign-owned limited liability company registered in Beijing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC”); 

3. The Licensee, a limited liability company incorporated in Beijing under the laws of the PRC, is licensed by Beijing Municipal
Telecommunication Management Bureau to carry on the business of the Internet Information Service; 
 4. The Licensor transferred
the Trademarks and all rights under the License Agreement to the Licensee on March 1, 2010 and completed the transfer procedures in January 2013. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 
 The License Agreement shall be terminated
pursuant to PRC Contract Law and Section 11 of the License Agreement. 
 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed by a duly authorized representative on their behalf as of the date first set forth above. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date first set forth above. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 

  
 1 








 Party A: Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 

Legal representative: Wang Zhan 
 Seal: /s/
Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 
 Party B: Beijing Baidu Netcom Science Technology Co., Ltd. 

Legal representative: Liang Zhixiang 
 Seal: /s/
Beijing Baidu Netcom Science Technology Co., Ltd. 

  
 2
#### City of Chicago, appellee, v. L. L. Boule, appellant.

Gen. No. 33,661.

Opinion filed January 6, 1930.

Rehearing denied January 20, 1930.

Follansbee, Shorey & Schupp and Irving E. Read, for appellant; Clyde E. Shorey, Robert W. Schupp and John E. Gavin, of counsel. Samuel A. Ettelson, Corporation Counsel, and Leon Hornstein, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for appellee.

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
##### 



Haights Cross Communications  Holding Company
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

Selected Periods
 Exhibit 12.1
 2003
    
    2004
    
    2005
    
    2006
    
    2007Ratio of Earnings to Fixed
Charges:Income before provision
for income taxes,
discontinued operations
and cumulative
effect of accounting
change(c)
    
    
    (1,577
    )
    
    
    (18,793
    )
    
    
    (24,309
    )
    
    
    (73,320
    )
    
    
    67,710Fixed ChargesInterest Expense
    
    
    19,928
    
    
    
    48,194
    
    
    
    59,328
    
    
    
    65,787
    
    
    
    61,772Amortization of Deferred
Financing Costs
    
    
    2,027
    
    
    
    2,937
    
    
    
    3,579
    
    
    
    3,382
    
    
    
    3,423Preferred Stock Accretion
& dividends
    
    
    17,472
    
    
    
    2,735
    
    
    
    3,048
    
    
    
    3,334
    
    
    
    2,182Interest portion of rental
expense (a)
    
    
    472
    
    
    
    510
    
    
    
    556
    
    
    
    576
    
    
    
    584Total Fixed Charges
    
    
    39,899
    
    
    
    54,376
    
    
    
    66,511
    
    
    
    73,079
    
    
    
    67,961Total Earnings
    
    
    38,322
    
    
    
    35,583
    
    
    
    42,202
    
    
    
    (241
    )
    
    
    135,671Ratio  Earnings to
Fixed Charges
    
    
    0.96
    
    
    
    0.65
    
    
    
    0.63
    
    
    
    (0.00
    )
    
    
    2.00Ratio Coverage Deficiency
(b),(c)
    
    
    (1,577
    )
    
    
    (18,793
    )
    
    
    (24,309
    )
    
    
    (73,320
    )
    
    
    
 
 (a)
    
    Includes approximately 21% of rent expense for each period presented as deemed by management to
be the interest component of such rentals.(b)
    
    Due to the loss from operations for the year ended
December 31, 2003, 2004, 2005, and
2006, there were insufficient earnings of $1.6 million,
$18.8 million, $24.3 million and $73.3 million, respectively, to cover fixed charges.(c)
    
    Earnings for the year ended December 31, 2007 included a
$115.5 million gain on troubled debt restructuring. Excluding the
impact of this gain, earning would have been insufficient to cover
fixed charged by $47.8 million.
Nicholas Company, Inc.411 East Wisconsin AvenueMilwaukee, WI 53202 July 31, 2019 VIA EDGAR U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission100 F Street, NEWashington, D.C. 20549 RE: Nicholas Fund, Inc. (the "Fund")Registration Nos. 002-30447/811-01728 Ladies and Gentlemen: Pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act"), as amended, the Fund hereby certifies that the forms of Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information that would have been filed under Rule 497(b) or (c) under the 1933 Act would not have differed from those contained in the Fund's most recent Registration Statement on Form N-1A which was filed electronically on July 30, 2019 with an effective date of July 30, 2019 as Amendment No. 77 under the 1933 Act to the Fund's Registration Statement pursuant to Rule 485(b) under the 1933 Act. If you have any questions or require further information, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (414) 272-4650 or Jason T. Thompson of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP at (414) 277-3482. Sincerely, /s/ Jennifer R. Kloehn Jennifer R. KloehnNicholas Company, Inc.