alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People, *ex relatione,*Luther, *vs.*Onondaga C. P.

ALBANY,

Oct. 1837.

Where a defendant in an execution, with whom property is left after a levy, removes the property from the county and the sheriff is made liable for the amount, the court on notice to the defendant will permit a new execution for the benefit of the sheriff to issue and be levied upon the real estate of the defendant, saving, however, the rights of subsequent incumbrancers, attaching after the removal of the personal property.

Mandamus. Luther, a deputy sheriff of Onondaga county, by virtue of an execution in favor of Lightbody and Wright against one Marshall, levied upon *personal property*in the possession of the defendant to an amount sufficient to satisfy the execution, but left the property in the possession of Marshall. The levy was made in *February,*1832. In May following Marshall removed the property from the county. The sheriff of Onondaga was *attached*and ordered to pay the amount of the execution. Luther paid the amount, procured an assignment of the judgment, and on notice to Marshall obtained leave from the Onondaga C. P. to issue an execution thereon, which was levied on the *real estate*of Marshall. In May, 1833, Baldwin and Brewster obtained a judgment in this court against Marshall on which they sold his *real estate,*becoming themselves the purchasers, and thereupon obtained from the Onondaga C. P. an order for a *perpetual stay*of the execution, issued for the benefit of Luther as to the real estate purchased by them. This order was obtained on notice to Luther, who *80now moved for a *mandamus*requiring the C. P. to vacate the order for a perpetual stay.

*S. Stevens,*for the relator.

*W. I. Dodge,*contra.

*By the Court,*

Cowen, J.

The court below allowed Luther to come and be subrogated in the place of the plaintiff as against Marshall the defendant, but not as against the purchasers of his real estate on subsequent judgments and executions. I. think they had a right to do so in their discretion. The levy by Luther, although Marshall subtracted the property before Baldwin and Brewster got their judgments, might well have induced them to suppose that the first judgment was satisfied, and led them on in their own suits to expense and trouble. All this was, very likely, in consequence of Luther’s neglect. He levied on personal property, which was *prima facie*a satisfaction. He was careless in not keeping it, and in leaving it with Marshall. I think this case is within the principle of *Wood*v. *Torrey,*6 Wendell, 562, and therefore the motion must be denied, with costs to be paid by the relator.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________
No. 98-41436

____________

BLUE GULF SEAFOOD INC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

DOLPHIN J, INC; MERMAID SEAFOOD, INC; T& J OYSTERS, INC,

Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

TRANSTEXAS GAS CORPORATION; FALCON DRILLING COMPANY, INCORPORATED,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas (G-98-CV-349)

December 12, 2000

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.* 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.

-2- PER CURIAM: *

Blue Gulf Seafood, Inc. (“Blue Gulf”), Dolphin J, Inc. (“Dolphin”), T & J Oysters, Inc. (“T

& J”), and Mermaid Seafood, Inc. (“Mermaid”), appeal the district court’s dismissal of their claims

against TransTexas Gas Corporati on (“TransTexas”), and Falcon Drilling Company, Inc. (“Falcon”)

pursuant to F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 12(b)(6). Blue Gulf, Dolphin, and T&J allege that they are Louisiana

corporations; Mermaid alleges it is a Texas corporati on. Each alleges ownership rights in oyster

leases in Galveston Bay, Texas. Each asserts that they incurred damages to their oyster beds and

suf fered a loss of production due to the activities of TransTexas and Falcon. The district court

properly dismissed Blue Gulf’s, Dolphin’s, and T&J’s complaints for failure to state a claim because

under T EX

. P ARKS & W ILD

. C ODE § 76.008 foreign corporat ions are not permitted to “lease and

control land” in Texas, and under T EX

. P ARKS & W ILD

. C ODE § 76.031 foreign corporati ons may not

receive a permit to plant or harvest oysters from public waters. Therefore, Blue Gulf, Dolphin, and

T & J have “failed to stat e a claim upon which relief can be granted.” F E D

. R. C IV

. P. 12(b)(6).

Further, these part ies may no t defeat dismissal based on the argument that they are commercial

fishermen, because t hey failed to plead this claim in their complaint. Mermaid’s claim against

TransTexas and Falcon, however, was improperly dismissed because it is a Texas corporation.

Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Blue Gulf’s, Dolphin’s, and T&J’s claims is

AFFIRMED, and the dismissal of Mermaid’s claims is VACATED and REMANDED.
# EUR-Lex - 31994R0869 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31994R0869

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 869/94 of 18 April 1994 concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined nomenclature **

*
Official Journal L 101 , 20/04/1994 P. 0001 - 0002 Finnish special edition: Chapter 2 Volume 11 P. 0111 Swedish special edition: Chapter 2 Volume 11 P. 0111 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 869/94 of 18 April 1994 concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined nomenclature

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 779/94 (2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Whereas in order to ensure uniform application of the combined nomenclature annexed to the said Regulation, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation;

Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has set down the general rules for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature and those rules also apply to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific Community provisions, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods;

Whereas, pursuant to the said general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table annexed to the present Regulation must be classified under the appropriate CN codes indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature Section of the Customs Code Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The goods described in column 1 of the annexed table are now classified within the combined nomenclature under the appropriate CN code indicated in column 2 of the said table.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 April 1994.

For the Commission

Christiane SCRIVENER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 256, 7. 9. 1987, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 91, 8. 4. 1994, p. 12.

ANNEX

"" ID="1">A pre-formatted magnetic floppy disk for use in automatic data processing machines> ID="2">8523 20 90> ID="3">Classification is determinated by the provisions of General Rules 1 and 6 for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature and the wording of CN codes 8523, 8523 20 and 8523 20 90"> ID="3">The formatting of the disk (recording with initialization data only) is not to be considered as a recording on the media itself within the meaning of heading 8524">
#### §§ 91.27-91.99 [Reserved]
§ 67.405 Medical examinations: Who may perform? ( a ) *First-class.* Any aviation medical examiner who is specifically designated for the purpose may perform examinations for the first-class medical certificate.
( b ) *Second- and third-class.* Any aviation medical examiner may perform examinations for the second-or third-class medical certificate.
[Doc. No. FAA-2007-27812, 73 FR 43066, July 24, 2008]
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Fund XII, L.P. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned,
Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General
Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our 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 results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ LEO F. WELLS, III  
| |  | Leo F. Wells, III      
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| |  | May 9, 2008            
| | 
| |  | /s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
| |  | Douglas P. Williams    
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
| |  | May 9, 2008
#### § 406.135 Withdrawal of complaint or request for hearing.

At any time before or during a hearing, the complainant may withdraw a complaint or a party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the consent of the administrative law judge. If the complainant withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative law judge must dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice.
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

     In  connection  with  the Quarterly Report of Allstates  WorldCargo,
Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2005  as  filed  with  the  Securities and  Exchange  Commission  (the
"Report"), I, Sam DiGiralomo, 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:


  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
      Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of
      operations of the Company for the periods presented.


August 12, 2005

/s/ Sam DiGiralomo
President and Chief Executive Officer


This  certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section  906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
forms1a2111309ex10-7.htm


    PROMISSORY
NOTE

    


    


    $
15,300.00                                                                                Dated:  June
11, 2007

    


    Principal
Amount                                $
15,300.00                                           State
of New York

    


    FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the
undersigned hereby jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Mary
Passalaqua, the sum Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($15,300.00),
together with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum on the unpaid
balance.  Said sum shall be paid in the manner following:

    


    In full upon demand.

    


    All payments shall be first applied to
interest and the balance to principal.  This note may be prepaid, at
any time, on whole or in part, without penalty.  All prepayments shall
be applied in reverse order of maturity.

    


    This note shall at the option of any
holder hereof be immediately due and payable upon the failure to make any
payment due hereunder within 5 days of its due date.

    


    In the event this note shall be in
default, and placed with an attorney for collection, then the undersigned agree
to pay all reasonable attorney fees and costs of collection.  Payments
not made within five (5) days of due date shall be subject to a late charge of 5
% of said payment.  All payments hereunder shall be made to such
address as may from time to time be designated by any holder
hereof.

    


    The undersigned and all other parties
to this note, whether as endorsers, guarantors or sureties, agree to remain
fully bound hereunder until this note shall be fully paid and waive demand,
presentment and protest and all notices thereto and further agree to remain
bound, notwithstanding any extension, renewal, modification, waiver, or other
indulgence by any holder or upon the discharge or release of any obligor
hereunder or to this note, or upon the exchange, substitution, or release of any
collateral granted as security for this note.  No modification or
indulgence by any holder hereof shall be binding unless in writing; and any
indulgence on any one occasion shall not be an indulgence for any other or
future occasion.  Any modification or change of terms, hereunder
granted by any holder hereof, shall be valid and binding upon each of the
undersigned, notwithstanding the acknowledgment of any of the undersigned, and
each of the undersigned does hereby irrevocably grant to each of the others a
power of attorney to enter into any such modification on their
behalf.  The rights of any holder hereof shall be cumulative and not
necessarily successive.  This note shall take effect as a sealed
instrument and shall be construed, governed and enforced in accordance with the
laws of the State first appearing at the head of this note.  The
undersigned hereby execute this note as principals and not as
sureties.

    


    /s/ John F.
Passalaqua

                                                                                         Borrower-
John F. Passalaqua

    Secretary, Pegasus Tel,
Inc.
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.706 Hearing. ( a ) If a hearing is ordered under § 302.705, the issues at such hearing shall be formulated in accordance with the instituting order, except that at a prehearing conference, the administrative law judge may permit the parties to raise such additional issues as he or she deems necessary to make a full determination of a fair and reasonable rate.
( b ) ( 1 ) The parties to the proceeding shall be the air carrier or carriers for whom rates are to be fixed, the U.S. Postal Service, the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings and any other person whom the DOT decisionmaker or administrative law judge permits to intervene in accordance with § 302.20.
( 2 ) In addition to participation in hearings in accordance with § 302.19, persons other than parties may, within the time fixed for filing an answer to an order to show cause as provided in § 302.704, submit a memorandum of opposition to, or in support of, the position taken in the petition or order. Such memorandum shall not be received as evidence in the proceeding.
( c ) All direct evidence shall be in writing and shall be filed in exhibit form within the times specified by the DOT decisionmaker or by the administrative law judge.
( d ) Except as modified by this subpart, the provisions of §§ 302.17 through 302.38 of this part shall apply.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sheldon Rivers, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 529]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), rendered May 29, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and petit larceny (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly determined that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination in the selection of jurors under *Batson v Kentucky*(476 US 79; *see, People v Jenkins,*84 NY2d 1001, 1003; *People v Childress,*81 NY2d 263, 266; *People v Gray,*243 AD2d 648).

The defendant’s present contentions that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s questioning of him during cross-examination, the prosecutor’s summation, and certain comments made by the court are largely unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Sevencan,*258 AD2d 485; *People v Campbell,*236 AD2d 618). In any event, no reversible error occurred.

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
10.1


 


ARCH CAPITAL GROUP LTD.


 


Second Amendment to Restricted
Share Unit Agreement


 


THIS AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”), dated July 9,
2009 between Arch Capital Group Ltd. (the “Company”), a Bermuda company,
and Constantine Iordanou (the “Employee”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company granted 17,668 Restricted Share
Units (the “Award”) to the Employee under the Company’s 2002 Long Term
Incentive and Share Award Plan (the “Plan”) pursuant to a restricted share unit
agreement, between the Company and the Employee, dated as of February 20,
2003 (the “Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, the Award was amended on December 9,
2008 in order to bring it into compliance with Section 409A of the Code;


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee wish to further
amend the Award solely to conform the date of distribution of Shares under the
Award to the date the fair market value of the Shares may be required to be
included in income under Section 457A of the Code and Section 801(d)(2) of
P.L. 110-343, Division C (the transition rules applicable to Section 457A);


 


WHEREAS, capitalized terms used without definition
herein will have the meanings given to them in the Agreement and the Plan;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and
mutual covenants contained herein, the parties have agreed to amend the
Agreement as follows:


 


1.                                       Section 2(c) of
the Award is amended as to all of the Restricted Share Units subject to the Award
to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“(c)  Distribution of Shares.  At the time the Employee ceases to be an
employee of the Company for any reason, the Company shall distribute to the
Employee (or his or her heirs in the event of the Employee’s death) a number of
Shares equal to the number of vested Restricted Share Units then held by the
Employee; provided, however, that, notwithstanding any provision of this
Award to the contrary (including Section 11 hereof), solely to conform the
date of distribution of Shares under this Award to the date the fair market
value of the Shares may be required to be included in income under Section 457A
of the Code and Section 801(d)(2) of P.L. 110-343, Division C, such
distribution of Shares shall in no event be made later than December 31,
2017.”


 


2.                                       All other
provisions of the Agreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.  This Amendment shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the


 

















 


laws of New York, without giving effect to principles of conflict of
laws, and may be executed in two counterparts, each of which shall constitute
one and the same instrument.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed
this Amendment on July 9, 2009.


 


	
   

  	
  ARCH
  CAPITAL GROUP LTD.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Dawna Ferguson

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:  Dawna Ferguson

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:  Secretary

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/
  Constantine Iordanou

  
	
   

  	
  Constantine
  Iordanou

  



 


2
§ 303.32 Service of the application. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a section 41309 application described in § 303.30(c) of this subpart and any related pleadings shall be served on any person or organization that has previously advised the air carrier association of its desire for service of such agreements. Each application shall contain the names and addresses of all persons served and a notice that any party in interest may within 21 days of the date of the application file comments with the Assistant Secretary in support or opposition to the application.
( b ) Service of IATA Traffic Conference agreements and amendments thereto upon any person or organization that previously has advised IATA of its desire for service of agreements may be accomplished by sending a summary notice specifying the filing date; the IATA memorandum number; the particular Conferences involved; the subject matter (e.g., cargo/passenger, tariffs/agency matters/ procedures); the proposed effective date(s); the markets or Conference areas affected; the names of the carriers participating in the agreement; the names of all persons served; and a notice that any party in interest may within 21 days of the date of filing of the application file comments with the Assistant Secretary in support of or opposition to the application. A request for a complete copy of the application can be made under the provisions of § 303.04(j).
[50 FR 31142, July 31, 1985, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15937, Apr. 16, 2019]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00228-CV

George GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

Anna GARCIA,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-02221

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. 

We order that appellee Anna Garcia recover her costs of this appeal from appellant George 

Garcia. 

SIGNED June 26, 2013.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
##### 



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
  (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.
  By:
    
    /s/ Jim D. JohnstonJim D. JohnstonChief Financial Officer (Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)