alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Duncan *v.*Drury.

Where one of two owners of land, subject to a mortgage, pays off the mortgage by instalments, and at the date of the last payment takes an assignment of the mortgage, it is not thereby merged or extinguished so as to give priority of lien to a subsequent judgment-creditor of the co-tenant.

In error from the Common Pleas of Erie.

Case stated. Hart purchased certain land from the administrators of Rogers, and assigned a moiety of his interest to Duncan. A deed was then made by the administrators to Hart & Duncan, who executed a mortgage for the purchase-money. Hart from time to time paid off part of the debt thus secured, and on paying the .last instalment, being $50, took an assignment of the mortgage. Whether he could sue out the mortgage, and have judgment *de terns,*as against a subsequent judgment-creditor of Duncan, was the question, it being admitted that Duncan had made no payments on account of the debt secured by the mortgage.

The court was of opinion he might do so.

*333*Grallrcdth*for plaintiff in' error,

contended the parties here were principals, and there conld be no subrogation in such case: 9 W. 451; 8 Ib. 384; 7 Ib. 99 ; 2 Penn. Rep. 379; 3 Ib. 200 ; 5 Raw. 114; 1 W. & S. 155; 4 Bar. 126.

*Marshall*and Walker, contrá.

*Oct.*9.

Coulter, *J.*

A mortgage is not of course merged by

coming into possession of the owner in fee: Moore *v.*Harrisburg Bank, 8 Watts, 138. It depends generally upon the intention of the parties to the arrangement accompanying the operation, either of assignment or payment. An intent to prevent the merger will be presumed, whenever it is the interest of the party that the encumbrance should not be sunk in the inheritance: Richards *v.*Ayres, 1 W. & S. 485. Here, the intent of the mortgagor and mortgagee was quite apparent, that the security or encumbrance should be kept on foot, because the mortgagee assigned it to the recovering mortgagor. It is also clearly the interest of. the mortgagor, that it should not sink in the inheritance. If it should be so held, an encumbrancer would get part of the proceeds of the sale in this case against equity, because, at the time he procured his encumbrance, the mortgage was indisputably the oldest lien; and it continued so, up till the payment of the money by Hart. Why then should the judgment against Duncan, the other mortgagor, who had really no equity in the land, all the money having been paid by Hart, be held extinguished by Hart’s payment of the money contrary to the expressed intent of the parties, merely to take that much out of his pocket in favour of one whose whole lien was subject to the lien of the mortgage? If he or anybody else had bid up the land, to an amount exceeding the mortgage, then he would have got his money.

Judgment affirmed.
§ 137.431 What rights do Indian Tribes and the Secretary have during the appeal process? Both the Indian Tribe and the Secretary have the same rights during the appeal process. These rights include the right to: ( a ) Be represented by legal counsel;
( b ) Have the parties provide witnesses who have knowledge of the relevant issues, including specific witnesses with that knowledge, who are requested by either party;
( c ) Cross-examine witnesses;
( d ) Introduce oral or documentary evidence, or both;
( e ) Require that oral testimony be under oath;
( f ) Receive a copy of the transcript of the hearing, and copies of all documentary evidence which is introduced at the hearing;
( g ) Compel the presence of witnesses, or the production of documents, or both, by subpoena at hearings or at depositions;
( h ) Take depositions, to request the production of documents, to serve interrogatories on other parties, and to request admissions; and
( i ) Any other procedural rights under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 556.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Form 10-K/A of Henry County Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report ), David H. Gill, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas L. Redding, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his/her knowledge that:



| | (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 operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ David H. GillDAVID H. GILLChief Executive OfficerApril 26, 2005/s/ Thomas L. ReddingTHOMAS L. REDDINGChief Financial and Accounting OfficerApril 26, 2005




This certification accompanies
this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
# C_2006067EN.01003401.xml

| 18.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/34

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3942 — Adidas/Reebok)

(2006/C 67/14)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 January 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M3942. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M3942. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### PIRATES COVE LOBSTER HOUSE and American Fire & Casualty Company, Petitioners, v. Jearline TOWNSEND and State of Florida Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 45475.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 22, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 1974.

Certiorari denied.

ADKINS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Marion MEINKE v. Ronald DOMINGUEZ et al.

No. 10784.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 1979.

*CMXLIXGeorge L. Moore, New Orleans, for plaintiff.

James S. Thompson, Porteous, Toledano, Hainkel & Johnson, New Orleans, for defendants.

Before REDMANN, LEMMON and BOU-TALL, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiffs’ nearly 14-year-old child consented to be shot with a BB gun by engaging in a “war” with defendants’ eight-year-old son. Perhaps defendants might be liable to a noncombatant stranger shot by their eight-year-old son during the “war” with BB guns defendants allowed on their premises, but they are not liable to a teenager who conducts the two-party battle with defendants’ eight-year-old son.

Affirmed.
# C_2005208EN.01000101.xml

| 25.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 208/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

24 August 2005

(2005/C 208/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2211 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,77 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4592 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68035 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3333 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5545 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 78,14 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9640 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5729 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,660 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 245,78 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0186 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5008 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,51 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,808 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6750 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6180 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4613 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4925 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7512 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0462 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 256,06 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,9222 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,8915 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3802 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 540,70 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,604 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 68,412 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,8600 |
| THB | Thai baht | 50,265 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2211

JPY

Japanese yen

134,77

DKK

Danish krone

7,4592

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68035

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3333

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5545

ISK

Iceland króna

78,14

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9640

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5729

CZK

Czech koruna

29,660

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

245,78

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0186

RON

Romanian leu

3,5008

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,51

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,808

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6750

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6180

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4613

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4925

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7512

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0462

KRW

South Korean won

1 256,06

ZAR

South African rand

7,9222

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,8915

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3802

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 540,70

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,604

PHP

Philippine peso

68,412

RUB

Russian rouble

34,8600

THB

Thai baht

50,265

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
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 OP-TECH Environmental Services,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company 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 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



Date: August 14, 2002     /s/ Christopher J. Polimino
                          ---------------------------
                          Christopher J. Polimino
                          Chief Executive Officer
                          OP-TECH Environmental Services, Inc.


<PAGE>



            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 OP-TECH Environmental Services,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company 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 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



Date: August 14, 2002     /s/ Douglas R. Lee
                          ------------------
                          Douglas R. Lee
                          Chief Financial Officer
                          OP-TECH Environmental Services, Inc.
Order 2012-2-11

Served: February 15, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 15th of February, 2012

Essential Air Service at

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

 DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0301

ORDER SELECTING CARRIER

Order 2012-1-24 tentatively selected SkyWest Airlines, Inc., to provide subsidized Essential Air 

Service (EAS) at Eau Claire, Wisconsin; Hancock/Houghton and Muskegon, Michigan; and 

Paducah, Kentucky, and directed all parties to show cause by January 31, 2012, why we should 

not make that tentative selection final. It delegated authority to the Director, Office of Aviation 

Analysis, to make that order final, provided there were no objections by the January 31 deadline. 

At three of the communities -- Eau Claire, Hancock/Houghton, and Paducah – there were no 

objections, and Order 2012-2-2 made that tentative selection final. 

At Muskegon, the community requested an extension to February 14, 2012, and by Notice dated 

January 31, 2012, we granted that request. The February 14 deadline has passed, and we 

received no objections. Therefore we will make the tentative selection of SkyWest at Muskegon 

final. 

ACCORDINGLY,

1. We make final the selection of SkyWest Airlines, Inc., to provide Essential Air Service at 

Muskegon, Michigan, as described in Appendix C of Order 2012-1-24; 

2. This docket will remain open until further Order of the Department; and
- 2 -

3. We will serve copies of this Order on the Mayor and Airport Manager of Muskegon, 

Michigan; Sovereign Air, Inc., Intrepid International Airlines, Multi-Aero, Inc., d/b/a Air Choice 

One, and SkyWest Airlines, Inc.

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available 

at http://www.regulations.gov
# Morocco

163 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 12, 2021	  Ned PriceJuly 12, 2021Washington, DC 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 1, 2021	  Ned PriceJuly 1, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Trafficking in Persons Report: Morocco	  July 1, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – June 10, 2021	  Ned PriceJune 10, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – May 19, 2021	  Jalina PorterMay 19, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Moroccan Foreign Minister Bourita	  May 18, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Morocco	  May 12, 2021 
        -    DipNote: Travel  		COVID-19 Response: Locally Employed Staff on the Front Lines of Global Repatriation Efforts	  May 10, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 30, 2021	  Jalina PorterApril 30, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Moroccan Foreign Minister Bourita	  April 30, 2021 

previous page1…1011121314…17next page

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Department of State Announces Reward Offer for Unknown Co-conspirators Responsible for Murder of Paraguayan Prosecutor Marcelo Daniel Pecci Albertini

# 									Department of State Announces Reward Offer for Unknown Co-conspirators Responsible for Murder of Paraguayan Prosecutor Marcelo Daniel Pecci Albertini							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

November 17, 2022

Today the U.S. Department of State is announcing a reward offer of up to $5 million for information leading to the arrests and/or convictions of the as yet unknown individuals who conspired or attempted to participate in the May 10, 2022, homicide of Paraguayan prosecutor Marcelo Pecci. This announcement is made in conjunction with a press conference today at the Presidential Palace in Asunción, Paraguay, where U.S. Ambassador Marc Ostfield and Paraguayan President Mario Abdo Benítez announced the reward.

Paraguayan Prosecutor Marcelo Pecci was a well-respected prosecutor who successfully pursued many high-profile organized crime cases. Pecci was assassinated on May 10, 2022, while on his honeymoon in Cartagena, Colombia. Subsequent investigation by Colombian National Police (CNP) identified six of the coconspirators who carried out the murder. The United States extends a profound thanks for the outstanding investigation by Colombian authorities, which led to the capture of five of the individuals who committed this ruthless assassination. The purpose of this reward offer is to seek information leading the arrest and/or conviction of any additional coconspirators, including those responsible for financing and ordering the assassination.

The United States supports the efforts of Colombian, Paraguayan, and other law enforcement partners seeking justice for Prosecutor Pecci. Any information regarding this reward offer should be directed to the Paraguayan Public Ministry +595-972-150-800 (phone/text/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal) or by e-mail to the Drug Enforcement Administration at PecciReward@dea.gov.

This reward is offered under the Department of State’s Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program (TOCRP). The TOCRP and the Narcotics Rewards Program (NRP) have helped bring more than 75 transnational criminals and major narcotics traffickers to justice since the inception of the NRP in 1986. The Department has paid more than $155 million in rewards under these programs for information leading to apprehensions and convictions.

For more information on the individuals listed above and the NRP and TOCRP, please see visit the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Rewards Program page.

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsColombiaCombating Drugs and CrimeCrimeCriminal JusticeOffice of the SpokespersonParaguay

Back to Top
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YI TAI SHAO, AKA Linda Yi Tai Shao,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

McMANIS FAULKNER, LLP; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-17063

D.C. No. 5:14-cv-01137-LHK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Yi Tai Shao, AKA Linda Yi Tai Shao, appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action alleging discrimination 

and state law claims in connection with a retainer agreement between Shao and 

defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 7 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-17063 

district court’s dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations. Lukovsky v. City 

& County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shao’s § 1981 discrimination claim as 

time-barred because Shao failed to file her action within the applicable statute of 

limitations. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (two-year statute of limitations for 

personal injury actions); Lukovsky, 535 F.3d at 1048 & n.2 (recognizing that 

actions cognizable under the pre-1990 version of § 1981 remain subject to forum 

state’s limitations period for personal injury torts).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Shao’s motion to 

disqualify the district court judge and the entire Northern District of California. 

See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth 

standard of review and standard for recusal).

We do not consider arguments or facts that were not presented to the district 

court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

Shao’s contentions that the district court failed to rule on a motion to strike 

and failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 are unpersuasive. 

Shao’s request for judicial notice, filed on October 8, 2015, is denied.

AFFIRMED.
[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:****Summary of vehicle occupantprotection laws: current as of...**
 
2006 | 2007 | 2010 | 2011
 
SuDoc Number:TD 8.68:
Item Number:0982-D-72 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000627840
 
September 10, 2019
# JUN 03  0750AM

CDR420

Line-In Record

Other

134.064
## ***Exhibit 10.25***

 

 

**DEMANDPROMISSORY NOTE**

 

 
| **$60,000** |   | **July 14, 2003** |
|-------------|--------|-------------------|

 

 

FORVALUE RECEIVED, PURCHASESOFT, INC, a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”),promises to pay to the order of Brian Tauber, an individual resident of theState of California (“Lender”), at such place as the holder hereof maydesignate, in lawful money of the United States of America, the principal sumof Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000), plus interest as hereinafter provided, ondemand. This Note shall be due and payable 150 days from the date hereof.   This Note shall bear interest on the unpaidprincipal amount hereof at the rate of 6% per annum; provided that interestshall accrue at the rate of 8% per annum on any principal or accrued interestthat is not paid within five days of written demand, from the date of suchdemand until the date of payment.

 

Borrowerwaives presentment, demand, protest, notice of protest, notice of dishonor,notice of nonpayment, any and all other notices and demands in connection withthe delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of thisNote.  No delay by the holder hereof inexercising any power or right in respect of this Note shall operate as a waiverof such or any other power or right.

 

Borrowermay at any time prepay in whole or in part, from time to time, the outstandingprincipal amount of this Note, together with accrued interest to date ofpayment on the principal amount so prepaid.

 

Borrowershall pay the holder hereof all costs and expenses of collection of this Note,including without limitation reasonable attorneys’ fees.

 

ThisNote shall be deemed to be made under and shall be construed in accordance withand governed by the laws of the State of California.

 

 
|   | PURCHASESOFT,  INC. |
|--------|---------------------|
|   |                |
|   |                |
|   | By                  |   /s/  Thomas B. Marsh |   |
|   |                | Thomas  B. Marsh |
|   |                | Secretary  and Treasurer |

 

----