alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Barton et al. *v.*Cridge et al.

[No. 17,734.

Filed June 19, 1896.]

From the Madison Circuit Court.

*Reversed.*

*H. D. Thompson*and *J. W. Layne,*for appellants.

McCabe, J.

— The appellant sued the appellee to recover possession of real estate. The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the complaint for want of sufficient facts. The error assigned is upon that ruling.

The complaint is in the ordinary form in such actions except the description of the land. The description is as follows : “ Ten acres off of the south end of the northeast quarter of section 35, in township 19 north, in range 7 east, except four acres off of the west side of said ten-acre tract heretofore conveyed to Cassana McGill.”

The only reason assigned in argument in support of the action of the circuit court in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint is that the description of the land sought to be recovered was too uncertain and hence the complaint did not state facts sufficient. The exact question thus presented was decided adversely to appellee’s contention in *Collins*v. *Dressler,*133 Ind. 290.

Adhering to the ruling there made, we must hold that the description was sufficient and that the complaint was good.

The judgment is reversed with instructions to overrule the demurrer to the complaint.
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONSI, Ron E. Hooper, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Marine Petroleum Trust for which Bank ofAmerica, N.A. acts as Trustee;2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report;4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and I have:  a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;   b)     evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and   c)     disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)     all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and   b)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.In giving the certifications in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, I have relied to the extent I considerreasonable on information provided to me by various working interest owners.        Date:  September 28, 2007 /s/ RON E. HOOPER   Ron E. Hooper
### Page 1 of 3 Disposition Comments

Docket No: 

### FAA

- 2013

- 0734 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 

### 2012

- SW

- 080

- AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.:

Next Step: FRA N SNPRM



### N o C omments/Only Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are

required.

No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

li st latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues

from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA

- IR

- M

- 8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one o

f the following : other

If other, explain : 

### Required actions are incorrect and must be corrected.

Commenter(s): 

### Luc Murphy , Airworthiness Office, Bell Helicopter Textron Canada

What change to the AD action is requested? 

### Update required actions to mandate t he upgrade of the

222

- 382

- 001

- 107 to 222

- 382

- 001

- 111 regardless of the condition of the piston rod

, as indicated

in ASB 430

- 11

- 46 Rev. A, PART 1.

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

### Revising step (2) of the AD will bring the AD in

line with ASB for the corresponding helicopter model.

Do we agree? Yes

If YES, we agree because 

### th is AD was intended to be a superseding AD, replacing the required

actions of AD 2010

- 19

- 51, which only required a one ti me inspection. The intent of this

superseding AD was to mandate the upgrade of the 222

- 382

- 001

- 107 to 222

- 382

- 001

- 111

, but s omewhere during the review cycle, the original AD requirements were inserted and

the intent of the supersedure was lost. Make the following changes to the AD: 

### reissue the

AD to mandate upgrade of the 222

- 382

- 001

- 107 to 222

- 382

- 001

- 111

.

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO

, we don’t agree because

ISSUE 2 : Select one of the following :

If other, explain :

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

### Page 2 of 3

Why is the change requested or how is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO

, we don’t agree because

For additional issues, double

- click here

### Page 3 of 3 S ignature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this act ion.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### 2012

- SW

- 080

- AD

ASE Printed Name : 

### Matt Wilbanks Date

Branch Manager Date
Unassociated Document


    
      Exhibit
10.2

        
          

        

      

    

    


    FORM
OF Patent Rights Transfer Agreement

    Contract
number:

     

    Sign
address:

    Patent
Name:

    Patent
Number:

    Transferor
(Party A):

    Address:

    Representative:

    


    Transferee
(Party B): WINDER ELECTRIC (GUANGDONG)

    Address:
Yangjiang High Technology Zone Area Three #1

    Representative:
Yaping Zhou

    


    According
to the Patent law of People’s Republic of China, both parties sign this contract
fairly, voluntarily, and honestly.

    
      
        	
                1.

              	
                Party
      A transfers all of his exterior design patent for patent number
      ____________ to party B to
use.

              


      

    

    
      
        	
                2.

              	
                Duration:
      Perpetual from the day both parties sign the
  contract.

              


      

    

    
      
        	
                3.

              	
                Transfer
      documents: right-claiming document, instruction book, instruction
      pictures, instruction abstract, abstract attached pictures, major change,
      patent certificates and other documents relate to the
    patents

              


      

    

    
      
        	
                4.

              	
                From
      the day both parties sign the contract, transferor should stop using the
      patents.

              


      

    

    
      
        	
                5.

              	
                Fee
      and paying method: the transferor voluntarily transfers the patents to the
      transferee without any fee.

              


      

    

    
      
        	
                6.

              	
                Patent
      maintenance fee: from the day both parties sign the contract, transferee
      should keep the patent valid and all the related fees should be paid by
      transferee, including annual fee, renew fee, tax and
  etc.

              


      

    

    
      
        	
                7.

              	
                Gap
      clause: According to item 50 of Patent Law, after the contract becomes
      valid, the patent right of the transferor is null and void; transferee
      does not need to return any document to the
  transferor.

              


      

    

    
      
        	
                8.

              	
                Argument
      solving: settle the dispute by the two parties concerned
      themselves

              


      

    

    
      
        	
                9.

              	
                Any
      other arrangement should be settled by two parties
    themselves

              


      

      
        	
                10.

              	
                This
      contract is binding on both parties, and has the same effect on both
      parties.

              


      

    

    


    Stamped
by:

    Transferor:

    Transferee:
Winder Electric (GuangDong) Co., Ltd

    


    Signed:
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 99.2





                          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 Annual Report of K-V Pharmaceutical Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Gerald R. Mitchell, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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.









Date:  June 27, 2003                       /s/ Gerald R. Mitchell
                          -----------------------------------------------------
                                             Gerald R. Mitchell
                          Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                               (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Edward L. Pierce, Director, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of BindView Development Corporation (the "Company"), certify that (i) the
Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
the results of operations of the Company.

By /s/ EDWARD L. PIERCE
   -----------------------------------------
   Edward L. Pierce
   Director, Senior Vice President and Chief
   Financial Officer
   March 29, 2004

      A signed original of the foregoing certification has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## Providing for today ... preparing 

## for tomorrow

Mark Gorman Municipal Administrator Sincerely, 

# 4/~ The City and Borough of Sitka agrees that Harris Aircraft Services, Inc., provides an essential transportation service and supports a finding of Public Convenience and Necessity. Please let me know if any additional information is needed to support your request for an Air Carrier Certificate. Thank you for the opportunity to support your essential transportation services. Harris Air provides valuable services to these local communities as well as to Sitka. While 

### a larger air carrier, Alaska Airlines, travels between Sitka and the larger communities, its schedule is not always conducive to regional travel and does not serve the small communities. Harris Air Services, Inc.,

. therefore provides valuable transportation links with its existing scheduled flights, 

### as we!l ascharter flights throughout 

### the Southeast Alaska island archipelago. The City and Borough of Sitka 

### is accessible only by air and water. The community of Sitka is located on the outer coast of Baranof Island, facing the Pacific Ocean. Due to its exposed and isolated location, Alaska Marine Highway System ferry services are limited, especially outside the two-month "summer season" in the schedule. Therefore persons traveling to Sitka from the surrounding smaller communities often utilize Harris Aircraft Services to travel to and from Sitka expeditiously. This is especially important for patients of the regional Native clinics and hospital in Sitka, the Southeast Alaska Health Corporation, which come from the entire region. The City and Borough of Sitka is pleased to support vour application for an Air Carrier Certificate. Harris Aircraft Services has provided criticafly important 

### transportation services to and from Sitka for many years. Dear Harris Aircraft Services, Inc.: Harris Aircraft Services, Inc. c/o Ali Clayton 400 Airport Road Sitka, AK 99835 September 4, 2014 

### Cons[- GUll

### rd Cify, USA 

# City and Borough of Sitka

Ion Lincoln Street' Shka, Alaska 99835
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 02-4210



# 
B ART K URTRICK

M ULLINS , Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-01-204, CR-01-222, CR-01-323) Submitted: November 19, 2002 Decided: December 12, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELThomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY, NEWELL, JOHNSON & BLACKMON, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Bart Kurtrick Mullins appeals the sentence imposed by the districtcourt following his guilty pleas to two counts of bank fraud in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1344 (2000), and one count of conspiracy to make, possess, and utter counterfeit checks in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 371,513 (2000). Mullins claims that the district court engaged in impermissible double counting by enhancing his sentence under separate provisions of the guidelines. Specifically, Mullins claims that the court erred by applying enhancements under both U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2F1.1(b)(2) (2000) (providing two-level enhancement for offense involving more than minimal planning), and USSG § 2F1.1(b)(5)(C)(ii) (providing two-level enhancement for scheme that involved five or more documents of false identification). Because Mullins did not preserve this objection at sentencing, we review his claim for plain error. United States v. Ford , 88 F.3d 1350, 1355 (4th Cir. 1996). Double counting is permitted by the guidelines except where it is expressly forbidden. United States v. Crawford , 18 F.3d 1173, 1179 (4th Cir. 1994). Neither § 2F1.1(b)(2) nor § 2F1.1(b)(5)(C)(ii) precludes double counting. Moreover, Mullins fails to suggest any factual connection between the use of five or more documents of false identification and his enhancement for more than minimal planning. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not engage in impermissible double counting. Because we discern no error, let alone plain error, we affirm Mullins’ conviction and sentence. We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. M ULLINS
Exhibit 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-158121, 333-149824, 333-137768, 333-128118, 333-118348, 333-106282, 333-101536, 333-69696, 333-45094 and 333-83153) of 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. of our report dated March 30, 2011, which includes an explanatory paragraph expressing substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern, relating to the consolidated financial statements of 4Kids Entertainment, Inc., which appear in this Form 10-K.








/s/ EisnerAmper LLP





New York, New York


March 30, 2011
Exhibit 10.7


 


UC Case Numbers 2004-177, 2007-108,
2010-170 & 2010-240.


 


Second Amendment 


to the 


Exclusive
License Agreement for Chemical Nanowire Sensor Technologies


 


This
second amendment to the Exclusive License Agreement for Chemical Nanowire Sensor Technologies ("First Amendment") between
The Regents of the University of California and Nano Engineered Applications (NEA) Inc. is made effective this 8th
day of March, 2011, between The Regents of the University of California ("The Regents"), a California corporation, having
its statewide administrative offices at 1111 Franklin Street, Oakland, California 94607-5200, and NEA Inc. ("Licensee"),
having its principal place of business at 1650 Spruce Street, Suite 500, Riverside, CA 92507.


 


BACKGROUND


 


Whereas,
on March 31, 2010, the Licensee and The Regents entered into an agreement entitled "Exclusive License Agreement between The
Regents of the University of California and Nano Engineered Applications, Inc. for Chemical Nanowire Sensor Technologies"
having UC Control Number 2010-04-0784 ("License Agreement");


 


Whereas,
the Licensee and The Regents agreed to a first amendment of the Licensee's due diligence requirements in the License Agreement
on December 14, 2010; and


 


Whereas,
the Licensee and The Regents agree to a second amendment of the Licensee's patent prosecution cost requirements in the License
Agreement as set forth below.


 


The parties agree as follows:


 


Paragraph 16.D of the License Agreement
is replaced in its entirety by the following:


 


16.D.All costs of obtaining
patentability opinions, preparing, filing, prosecuting, and maintaining patent applications and resulting patents specified under
Patent Rights ("Patent Prosecution Costs") which occur at eight (8) months or later after the "Effective Date"
of this Agreement will be borne by the Licensee. The costs of all interferences, oppositions, reexaminations, and reissues shall
also be deemed to be Patent Prosecution Costs and also will be borne by the Licensee. The Licensee will reimburse The Regents
for all Patent Prosecution Costs within thirty (30) days following receipt of an itemized invoice from The Regents for Patent
Prosecution Costs. If either party terminates this Agreement, the Licensee will he responsible for all Patent Prosecution Costs
incurred up to the effective date of termination of the Agreement.


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


In witness whereof,
each party hereto has executed this Second Amendment in duplicate originals by their respective and duly authorized officers on
the day and year below written.


 





	Nano
                    Engineered Applications, Inc.
	 	The Regents of the University of California	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Signature:	/s/ Amro Albanna	 	Signature:	/s/ Craig Sheward	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name: Amro Albanna	 	Name: Craig Sheward	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:		 	Title: Assistant Vice Chancellor, OTC	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date: 4/21/2011	 	Date: 4/21/2011
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 21, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00734

- CV

Sandra SAKS , Lee Nick McFadin, III and M argaret Landen Saks,

Appellant s

v.

BROADWAY COFFEEHOUSE, LLC

,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 17001

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellants' motion for temporary staying enforcement of the judgment is hereby

DENIED.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of November, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE  PRESENTS,  that each director and officer whose signature
appears below  constitutes  and appoints  Michael T. Grennan his or her true and
lawful   attorney-in-fact  and  agent,  with  full  power  of  substitution  and
re-substitution, to sign, individually, in the name on behalf of the undersigned
in any and all  capacities  stated  below,  the Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB of
eNote.com  Inc.  for the fiscal  year ended  December  31,  2000 and any and all
amendments  thereto,  which amendments may make such changes in such Form 10-KSB
as such  attorney-in-fact  may deem  appropriate,  and to file the same with all
exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, granting to such attorney-in-fact and agent, full power
and authority to do all such other acts and execute all such other  documents as
he may deem necessary or desirable in connection with the foregoing, as fully as
the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that such  attorney-in-fact  and agent  may  lawfully  do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof.

         Signature                            Title                     Date


_______________________                     Director             October 4, 2001
Lee Abraham