alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William H. Derby, Jr. *et al. v.*The City of Chicago.

*Opinion filed April 18, 1899.*

The questions here raised are discussed and decided in the case of *Gray*v. *Town of Cicero,*177 Ill. 459.

Writ of Error to the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Orrin N. Carter, Judge, presiding.

J. B. Keogh, and H. M. Harper, for plaintiffs in error.

Charles S. Thornton, Corporation Counsel, and G. W. Ambrose, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Wilkin

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a writ of error to review a judgment rendered by the county court of Cook county confirming a special assessment levied by the city of Chicago and collectible in five annual installments; upon the property of the several plaintiffs in error, for the purpose of paying for a system of main sewers in South Forty-fifth avenue and other streets, in said city, and involving the creation of a drainage district in connection therewith.

The objection relied upon as a ground for reversal is, that the ordinance here involved, upon which alone the assessment proceedings are based, was invalid, because, while creating a drainage district, it provided also for the division of the assessment into installments without authority of law, and that in the absence of a valid ordinance the county court was without jurisdiction in the matter of said assessment. The questions here presented are fully discussed and decided in the cases of *Gray*v. *Town of Cicero,*177 Ill. 459, and *Mason*v. *City of Chicago,*178 id. 499, and a further discussion of them here is deemed unnecessary. In accord with the views therein expressed the judgment of the county court in this cause is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### Motcum, S. A., et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Bank of the Western Hemisphere, Ltd., et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 16, 1979, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, reversed, on the law, to grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against defendant Bank of the Western Hemisphere, Ltd., in the sum of $54,990, on its first cause of action, and to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as to the second cause of action, and otherwise affirmed, with costs. Plaintiffs and defendant Bank of the Western Hemisphere, Ltd. (Bank), entered into an agreement, under the terms of which the Bank was to negotiate a loan, on plaintiffs’ behalf, of $1,300,000 from Midland Credit Corp. (Midland). In return for its services, the Bank was to receive a commission of 8.4% or $109,980. The Bank insisted that one half the commission be paid "up-front”. In accordance with the agreement, plaintiffs had four bank checks drawn, totaling $54,990, to the payees designated by Carlos Enriquez, the Bank’s representative, and transmitted the checks to the Bank. It is undisputed that the Bank received the checks and negotiated them. The loan was never consummated and this action was brought. The complaint contains two causes of action. The first is to recoup the $54,990 paid to the Bank. The second cause is bottomed in conspiracy and seeks "treble damages”, obviously the nomenclature selected by plaintiffs for assertion of a claim for punitive damages. Defendant contends that it received the checks together with some "10 pounds of * * * paper” and that it never was apprised of what it was supposed to do. It acknowledges that it never sought to contact Midland and asserts that Enriquez never had authority to enter into the agreement with plaintiffs. Moreover, it contends that there is nothing to show that plaintiffs were the source of the bank checks. It also points to a somewhat ambiguous letter from Enriquez to Sitnisky, plaintiffs’ financial director, that should financial transactions eventuate with specified companies, including plaintiffs, Sitnisky would be assigned a percentage of the fee to be determined by the parties in each case. The affidavit of the Equadorian bank which issued the checks establishes conclusively that plaintiffs were the source of the funds upon the basis of which the checks were issued. The issue of Enriquez’ authority is of little consequence inasmuch as defendant concedes that it received and negotiated the checks. Finally, whatever may have been the private arrangement between Enriquez and Sitnisky, it cannot affect the fact that the Bank received certain funds in return for which it was required to render specified services. Since it did not render the services, it is not entitled to retain the moneys paid to it. The allegations do not provide a basis for punitive damages. Accordingly, we dismiss plaintiffs’ second cause of action. Concur—Fein, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Bloom and Carro, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JONATHAN L. OLSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv4060/RV/HTC

SKANSKA USA CIVIL SOUTHEAST,

INC., and MTT EQUIPMENT 

SERVICE, LLP,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court having been advised that this matter has been 

compromised and settled between the parties (doc. 15), it is ORDERED:

(1) This cause is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice and without 

taxation of costs.

(2) In the event settlement is not consummated for any reason, the 

Court reserves the power, upon motion filed by any party within 60 days 

after date, to amend, alter or vacate and set aside this order of dismissal. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of August, 2020.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-04060-RV-HTC Document 16 Filed 08/03/20 Page 1 of 1
---

|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 Hemis Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 my 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.

|Dated:   May 15, 2007 | /s/ Bruno Weiss                     
|--------------------- | ------------------------------------
|                      | Bruno Weiss, Chief Financial Officer

---
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2167 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to establish additional requirements to improve the 

fiscal safety and soundness of the home equity conversion 

mortgage insurance program. 

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

•HR 2167 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reverse Mortgage Sta3 bilization Act of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS REQUIRE5 MENTS FOR HOME EQUITY CONVERSION 

6 MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM. 

7 Subsection (h) of section 255 of the National Hous8 ing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z–20(h)) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

10 end; 

11 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at 

12 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

13 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

14 paragraph: 

15 ‘‘(3) establish, by notice or mortgagee letter, 

16 any additional or alternative requirements that the 

17 Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, determines 

18 are necessary to improve the fiscal safety and sound19 ness of the program authorized by this section, 

20 which requirements shall take effect upon 

21 issuance.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 12, 2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2167 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban 

gram. home equity conversion mortgage insurance proto improve the fiscal safety and soundness of the Development to establish additional requirements
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.22  


 
 

BUNGE LIMITED BOARD OF DIRECTORS
  
    DESCRIPTION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS'
  COMPENSATION
  (May 2005—April 2006)    
    



Annual Retainer  



	•
	$60,000
per year. 




Committee Chairman Fees  



	•
	$20,000
per year for Audit Committee chair.



	•
	$10,000
per year for each other committee chair. 






Committee Member Fees  



	•
	$10,000
per year for Audit Committee membership.



	•
	$5,000
per year for each other committee membership. 




Meeting Fees  



	•
	If
the Board meets more than five times per year, each Director will receive a fee of $1,000 per day of meetings.



	•
	If
a committee meets more than five times per year, each committee member will receive a fee of $1,000 per day of meetings.



	•
	Directors
will receive $250 for each board or committee meeting held by teleconference if the number of board or committee meetings exceeds five for the year. 




Stock Options  



	•
	Each
year on the date of the Annual General Meeting, each continuing Director will be granted an option to purchase 5,500 shares of Bunge Limited Common Stock under the
Bunge Limited Non-Employee Directors' Equity Incentive Plan.



	•
	At
the time of appointment or election, each new Director will be granted an option to purchase 7,500 shares of Bunge Limited Common Stock under the Bunge Limited
Non-Employee Directors' Equity Incentive Plan. 




Deferral of Fees  



	•
	Directors
may defer all or a portion of their fees under the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors. 
















QuickLinks


BUNGE LIMITED BOARD OF DIRECTORS DESCRIPTION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION (May 2005—April 2006)
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |   |  |   |  |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--|--------|--|--------|
|   |   
PATHways
 Newsletter
*PATHways* contest
- Vol. 2, Issue 2  also available in Adobe Acrobat  Vol. 2, Issue 1 also available in Adobe AcrobatVol. 1, Issue 3
also available in Adobe Acrobat
- Vol. 1, Issue 2  also available in Adobe Acrobat  Vol. 1, Issue 1also available in Adobe Acrobat
To request a copy, please call 1-800-245-2691
Featured Publications
Technical Publications
PATH Slide Presentation
Web Sites	
Associations
- Builders/Remodelers  Codes and StandardsFederal Agencies
- Finance  Housing ManufacturersInsurance
- Labor  Product Distributors/RetailersProduct Manufacturers
- State/Local  Universities/Research LaboratoriesUtilities
Who's Involved	 
Coordinating Council Working Groups Federal Agencies Private Industry |
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

PIOTR PETE CHWALA,

A# 215-589-098,

Petitioner,

v. 4:20cv121–WS/MAF

WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE UNITED

STATES, et al.,

Respondents.

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 9) docketed April 28, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that this case be

dismissed without prejudice for the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's amended report and recommendation (ECF No. 9) 

is hereby ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

Case 4:20-cv-00121-WS-MAF Document 11 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "All claims are DISMISSED

without prejudice."

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of May , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

 WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:20-cv-00121-WS-MAF Document 11 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
      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.
  /s/ Steven J. MalcolmSteven J. MalcolmChief Executive Officer of Williams Partners GP
LLC, general partner of Williams Partners L.P.
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### In the Matter of Albert Rubert, Petitioner, v. William S. Hults, as Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

Order of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, dated July 8, 1966, modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, to the extent that the penalty in the Commissioner’s order is reduced to a 30-day suspension. The record contains substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner violated subdivision (a) of section 1142 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, by failing to yield the right of way. No exceptions were noted to the manner in which the hearing was conducted nor to any alleged limitations of cross-examination, and we find that petitioner was afforded a fair hearing. However, we believe that, in view of all the circumstances, the penalty of a 90-day suspension is inordinately severe and constitutes an improvident exercise of discretion. Petitioner requires the daily use of his truck for his business, which is a one-man operation. While some bad judgment is manifest in his driving, there is no claim that he is guilty of “gross negligence” or “reckless disregard for life or property” (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 510, subd. 3, par. [e]). We feel that a penalty above a 30-day suspension would shock our sense of fairness, (see *Matter of Koppel*v. *Suits,*20 A D 2d 669; *Matter of Matoslcey*v. *Suits,*24 A D 2d 703). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ FREDERIC SCHEERFrederic ScheerChairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer / Principal Financial Officer)May 19, 2009
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-30925 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ROBBIE RAY, also known as Pookie Ray, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:11-CR-19-4

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robbie R ay p leaded guilty to one count of conspiracy t o distribute and to possess with intent t o distribute 500 grams o r m ore of cocaine hydrochloride and 280 grams or more of c ocaine b ase, one count of distribution of 28 grams or more of cocaine base, two counts o f use of a communication facility i n the commission of the drug con s p i r a cy, a nd one count of distribution of 280 grams or more of cocaine base. In h i s written plea agreement, Ray waived, inter alia, his right to U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 29, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-30925 Document: 00512423091 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2013No. 12-30925

appeal his conviction a n d sentence. The district court imposed an aggregate sentence of 216 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. On appea l , R ay argues that the di strict court abused its discretion by denying his m o t i o n t o withdraw his guilty plea and by f ailing to hold an evidentiary hearing on that motion. I n support, R ay contends that his plea was t he p r oduct of duress concerning his brother and co-defendant, Courtney Ray, and therefore was not knowing and voluntary. He further co n tends that he asserte d h i s i n nocence; that he did not d elay in filing the motion; and that withdrawal would n ot prejudice the Government , substantially inconvenience the district c o urt, or w aste judicial resources. Ray m ay raise his argument regarding the denial of his motion to withdraw his gu ilty plea because a waiverof-a p p e a l p r o vision i s not valid unless both the plea and the waiver were knowingly and vo luntarily entered. See United States v. Robinson , 187 F.3d 516, 517 (5th Cir. 1999). We review the district court’s decision to deny a m otio n to withdraw for abuse o f discretion. United States v . M cK n ight , 570 F.3d 641, 645 (5th Cir. 2009). A review of the record, Ray’s arguments, and the factors listed in United States v. Carr , 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984), shows that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ray’s m otion to withdraw his guilty plea. See id. As Ray did not allege s u f f i c ient facts to justify relief on his claim, the district court did not abuse its discretion by n ot holding an evidentiary hearing before denying the motion to withdraw the plea. See United States v. Powell , 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir. 2003). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-30925 Document: 00512423091 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2013
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

J USTI N DAL E EUB ANK, Ap pe lla nt, V. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 00 89 -C R

Appea l from the 109th District Court of An dr e ws County , T e xas (TC# 5067)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION J ustin Dale Eubank a

ppeals his conviction for

ag g ravated assault ca

using bodily

injury with a dea dly

wea pon. Appellant wa s sentence d to 15 y ear s imprisonment in t he Te x as Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice Institut ional Division. Appellant’s c ourt-appointed c ounsel has filed a brief in whic h counsel ha s conclude d that the appe al is wholly

frivolous and without merit. The br ief mee ts the require ments of Anders v. Cal ifo rn ia , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L .Ed.2d 493, reh. denie d , 3 88 U. S. 9 24 , 8 7 S. Ct. 2094, 18 L .Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord demonstratingwhy , in effe ct there are no arguable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e Hi

gh v . S tate , 57 3 S. W.2 d 8 07 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); J ac k so n v . S tate , 4 85 S.W. 2d

55 3 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Ga ino us v . S tate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). A copy of counse l’s brief ha s been de livered to Appe llant, and Appellant has not exercised his rig ht to file a pr o s e brief.-2-

We h ave c are fu lly

re vie we d th e re c or d a

nd c ouns e l’ s b ri e f, and

a g re e tha t th e a pp e a l is wh oll y fr ivo lou s and

wi tho ut m e ri t. F ur

the r, we fi nd

no thi ngin t

he re c or d th a t mi g ht a

rgua bly support the appe al. The judg ment is affirme d. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.
Aug ust 19, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. (Do Not Publish)
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

§ 292.5 General purpose and scope. ( a ) Summer EBT eligibility is based on the eligibility standards for the NSLP/SBP, which includes children who are income eligible for free or reduced-price school meals based on the Income Eligibility Guidelines published by the Department by notice in the Federal Register and in accordance with the household size and income standards for free and reduced price school meals, and children who are categorically eligible, as defined in § 292.2.
( b ) The Income Eligibility Guidelines are published annually and change on July 1. The guidelines in effect on the date of application must be used to determine eligibility.