alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT.

#### William H. Branch, Receiver, &c., agt. Sheffield Harrington and Mabelia L. Harrington.

*MorrisviUe Special Term,*

*June*29, 1875.

*Irregularity in a receiver employing an attorney of a judgment creditor.*

It is irregular for a receiver' in supplementary proceedings to employ, on his behalf, the attorney for the judgment creditor in the action.

Motion made by the defendants to set aside this action, for the reason that it was brought by the attorney without authority from the plaintiff as receiver, and that it was irregular for the receiver to employ the attorney of the judgment creditor to bring the action, and for him to bring the same. The motion was made before appearance by the defendants.

*J. A. Lynes,*for defendants.

*H. N. Warner,*for plaintiff.

Murray, *J*.

As to the first ground I find,, as a fact, from the affidavits and papers presented, that the action was authorized by the plaintiff, as such receiver.

As to the» other ground, the general rule is that a receiver in an action cannot appoint, as his attorney, the attorney of either party (9 *Bosw.,*684; 4 *Edw. Ch. B.,*416; 1 *id.,*576; 2 *id.,*165; 19 *How.,*394). A receiver appointed in supplementary proceedings has the same author*197ity and performs the same duties as one appointed generally in the action (Code, *see. 298).*

The same rules must govern them in the performance of their duties.

The plaintiff in this case having been appointed a receiver in proceedings supplementary to an execution, and such proceedings being proceedings in the action, it was irregular to appoint the attorney of the plaintiff in that action to be his attorney. The defendant in the first action had the right to object on the ground of such irregularity. In the action brought by the receiver, the defendant in the former action is made defendant, together with Mabelia, his wife, who was a stranger to the former action. It is charged that the former defendant had conveyed real estate to his wife, with intent to cheat and defraud his creditors, and that she received such conveyance for the like purpose and with like intent. This action is brought by the receiver to set aside such conveyance, making both the fraudulent grantor and grantee parties. Mabelia, being a stranger to the former suit, had no right to object to such irregularity *(Warren*agt. *Sprague,*11 Paige, 200; *Cummings*agt. *Edgerton, 9 Bosw.,*684).

The motion is made in behalf of both defendants,, and, it being irregular as to the defendant Sheffield Harrington, it must be granted.

I think the practice has been for the receiver to employ the creditor’s attorney, and the question has not been understood as applying to receivers appointed in supplementary proceedings, therefore no costs of motion will be allowed.
§ 196.95-1 Pilot boarding operations. ( a ) The master shall ensure that pilot boarding equipment is maintained as follows: ( 1 ) The equipment must be kept clean and in good working order.
( 2 ) Each damaged step or spreader step on a pilot ladder must be replaced in kind with an approved replacement step or spreader step, prior to further use of the ladder. The replacement step or spreader step must be secured by the method used in the original construction of the ladder, and in accordance with manufacturer instructions.
( b ) The master shall ensure compliance with the following during pilot boarding operations: ( 1 ) Only approved pilot boarding equipment may be used.
( 2 ) The pilot boarding equipment must rest firmly against the hull of the vessel and be clear of overboard discharges.
( 3 ) Two man ropes, a safety line and an approved lifebuoy with an approved water light must be at the point of access and be immediately available for use during boarding operations.
( 4 ) Rigging of the equipment and embarkation/debarkation of a pilot must be supervised in person by a deck officer.
( 5 ) Both the equipment over the side and the point of access must be adequately lit during the night operations.
( 6 ) If a pilot hoist is used, a pilot ladder must be kept on deck adjacent to the hoist and available for immediate use.
[CGD 79-032, 49 FR 25455, June 21, 1984]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending May 20, 2006

----

Bank Branches, DomesticFirst Option Bank, Osawatomie, Kansas  -- commenter's request for reconsideration of the approval by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City of the application to establish a branch in Spring Hill and request for a public hearing on the Spring Hill branch application.					-Denied, May 15, 2006 					

EnforcementGulf Bank, Miami, Florida  -- issuance of an order of prohibition against Yolanda Salido, a former institution-affiliated party.					-Announced, May 19, 2006 					Texas State Bank, McAllen, Texas  -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and the Texas Department of Banking.					-Announced, May 19, 2006 					

Testimony And StatementsThe Role of Hedge Funds in the Capital Market  -- statement by Patrick M. Parkinson, Deputy Director, Division of Research and Statistics, before the Subcommittee on Securities and Investment of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.					-Published, May 16, 2006 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: May 25, 2006
Exhibit 12.1



I, Martin Cotter, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,

certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of

Portrush Petroleum Corp.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement

of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the

statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements

were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this

Annual Report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial

information included in this report, fairly present in all material

respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows

of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for

establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures

(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company

and have:

(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

company, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control

over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the

Annual Report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely

to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial

reporting; and



5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on

our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to

the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of

directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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 companys ability to record,

process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other

employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control

over financial reporting.





Date: July 7, 2005



/s/ Martin Cotter

Martin Cotter, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
STATE OF MIssIssIpm 

HAW Bmua 

GOVMNOR 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

TRUDY D FISHER. Fmamv~ DIRECTOR 

May 14,2008 

Mr. Marc F. Holman 

Plant Manager 

E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company 

P.O. Box 430 

Pass Christian, MS 39571 

Re: Regional Haze Rule 

Dupont DeLisle Plant 

Harrison County, Mississippi 

Dear Mr. Holman 

Mississippi is finalizing our State Implementation Plan for the Regional Haze Rule in 

order to go to notice and submit to EPA. Our Reasonable Progress analysis found that 

the DuPont Delisle Plant contributes to the visibility impairment at the Breton Wildlife 

Refuge and may need to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. To help meet the Reasonable 

Progress provisions in the Regional Haze Rule, we are required to evaluate types of 

controls necessary to improve the visibility at Breton. In evaluating the controls, we 

are required to consider the cost of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the 

energy and non-air environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life 

of the source. DuPont provided us with information dated December 4, 2007 to help in 

our evaluation. 

Sulfur dioxide emissions from the facility's coal fved boilers are the pri mary concern 

and it appears that switching to a lower sulfur coal would be reasonable. The 

December 4 submittal briefly evaluated switching from 2.5 % coal to 1.05, 1.5, or 2% 

coal. From a cost standpoint, it appears that switching to 1.05 % coal would result in 

the greatest reduction and at a cost of $5451 ton would be well within a cost that would 

be considered reasonable. In the same submittal, it was stated that using thel.05 % 

coal may adversely affect the facility's electrosta tic precipitators (ESP). In further 

discussions with DuPont Personnel, it was indicated that 1.5 % sulfur Coal may not be 

possible due to the effects on the ESPs and issues with being able to meet the future 

MACT Boiler requirements as well. It is our understanding that while switching to a 

low sulfur coal can adversely affect the performance of ESPs, the impact is not 

significant until the sulfur content drops below 1 %. In addition, the lower sulfur coals 

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL 

Pan OFFICE BOX 2261 .JACKSON. MlSSlSSLPM 39225-2261. TEL: (601) 961-5171 . FA% (601) 3541612. mnv.deq.snrc.ms.us 

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 
generally have lower ash and metals content that could reduce the load on the ESPs and 

help meet any future MACT requirements. 

For our current SIP submittal, we are considering requiring a switch to 1.05 % sulfur 

coal to reduce SO2 emissions from this facility. The proposed time frame for the 

switch would be 2013. If it does not appear possible for the facility to use this coal 

type or there are other factors that need to be taken into consideration, please submit 

this information by August 12, 2008. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at (601) 961-5142 or Elliott Bickerstaff at 

(601)961-5176. 

Sincerely, 

4?4'waL\ 

Maya dao, P.E.. BCEE 

Chief, Air Division
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRAACTED FROM
PCD INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR PERIOD ENDED MARCH 29, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                          20,747
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,345
<ALLOWANCES>                                       236
<INVENTORY>                                      2,862
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,810
<PP&E>                                          10,108
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,756
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,365
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,062
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,486
<SALES>                                          6,217
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,217
<CGS>                                            3,264
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,356
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,858
<INCOME-TAX>                                       683
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,175
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,175
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
§ 182.530 Bilge high level alarms. ( a ) On a vessel of at least 7.9 meters (26 feet) in length, a visual and audible alarm must be provided at the operating station to indicate a high water level in each of the following normally unmanned spaces: ( 1 ) A space with a through-hull fitting below the deepest load waterline, such as a lazarette;
( 2 ) A machinery space bilge, bilge well, shaft alley bilge, or other spaces subject to flooding from sea water piping within the space; and
( 3 ) A space with a non-watertight closure, such as a space with a non-watertight hatch on the main deck.
( b ) Vessels constructed of wood must, in addition to paragraph (a), provide bilge level alarms in all watertight compartments except small buoyancy chambers.
( c ) A visual indicator must be provided at the operating station to indicate when any automatic bilge pump is operating.
§ 185.518 Inflatable survival craft placards. ( a ) Every vessel equipped with an inflatable survival craft must have approved placards or other cards containing instructions for launching and inflating inflatable survival craft for the information of persons on board posted in conspicuous places by each inflatable survival craft.
( b ) Under the requirement in § 160.051-6(c)(1) of this chapter, the manufacturer of approved inflatable liferafts is required to provide approved placards containing such instructions with each liferaft. Similar placards must be used for other inflatable survival craft.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 1005, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51050, Sept. 30, 1997; 62 FR 51359, Sept. 30, 1997]
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.47 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.48 Filed 07/29/15 Page 2 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.49 Filed 07/29/15 Page 3 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.50 Filed 07/29/15 Page 4 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.51 Filed 07/29/15 Page 5 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.52 Filed 07/29/15 Page 6 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.53 Filed 07/29/15 Page 7 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.54 Filed 07/29/15 Page 8 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.55 Filed 07/29/15 Page 9 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.56 Filed 07/29/15 Page 10 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.57 Filed 07/29/15 Page 11 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.58 Filed 07/29/15 Page 12 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.59 Filed 07/29/15 Page 13 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.60 Filed 07/29/15 Page 14 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.61 Filed 07/29/15 Page 15 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.62 Filed 07/29/15 Page 16 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.63 Filed 07/29/15 Page 17 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.64 Filed 07/29/15 Page 18 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.65 Filed 07/29/15 Page 19 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.66 Filed 07/29/15 Page 20 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.67 Filed 07/29/15 Page 21 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.68 Filed 07/29/15 Page 22 of 23
Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.69 Filed 07/29/15 Page 23 of 23
SUPREME COURT.

#### Duncan agt. De Witt.

*New York, Special Term,*

*June, 1875.*

*Motion to open default denied.*

Where as a pure matter of favor, and with the notice that the cause must be tried when again called, the cause was put over, and when again called an untruth was told to procure a further adjournment:

*Held,*that to allow the plaintiff’s default (dismissing the complaint) to be opened under such circumstances, would be simply to encourage a bad practice.

This was an action on a claim for $100,000. The plaintiff and defendant were residents of the state of Hew Jersey; nearly all of the witnesses resided there. The plaintiff claimed to recover of the defendant $100,000 damages for alleged breach of an alleged contract. The defendant claimed there was not the slightest foundation for the action, and wanted the trial to come off. He attended with his counsel, *S. A. Noyes*and *D. McMahon,*and with his witnesses from Hew Jersey, a number of times. The plaintiff did not present himself ready for trial with his witnesses. Finally, on motion of *Mr. McMahon,*who pronounced in open court that the plaintiff had no case, the judge at circuit dismissed the plaintiff’s action, with costs. Motion was then made to open the default and to let the plaintiff in to try the cause.

*Mr. Bell,*for plaintiff.

*D. McMahon,*for defendant.

*132Donohue, *J*.

In this case both the parties reside in Hew Jersey; the subject-matter of the action is in Hew Jersey. Under these circumstances, unless there are facts showing a good reason for opening the default, the parties should be allowed to litigate in that state. It seems to me that the case does not show such a state of facts as would entitle the plaintiff to the relief he asked. The action of the plaintiff in the call of the case at circuit, rather impressed me with the feeling that plaintiff did not intend to try his cause when the jury had been sworn in the cause and no valid excuse for putting off the case with a number of witnesses in court from Hew Jersey. As a pure matter of favor, and with the notice that the cause must be tried when again called, the cause was put over; and when again called, an untruth was told to procure a further adjournment. To allow this default to be opened, would be simply to encourage a bad practice. Motion denied, with costs.
#### § 174.020 Alternate intact stability criterion.

A barge need not comply with § 174.015 and subparts C and E of part 170 of this chapter if it has the following characteristics:

(a) The weather deck is watertight.

(b) The barge's hull proportions fall within any one of the ratios in categories (A) through (D) in Table 174.020.

(c) The maximum cargo height is 30 feet (9.25 meters) or a value equal to the depth of the barge amidships, whichever is less.

| Category | Beam/depth ratio | Draft/depth ratio |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A | 3.00 to 3.74 | Equal to or less than 0.70. |
| B | 3.75 to 3.99 | Equal to or less than 0.72. |
| C | 4.00 to 4.49 | Equal to or less than 0.76. |
| D | 4,50 to 6.00 | Equal to or less than 0.80. |

Table 174.020
2 

Motions in limine (“MIL”). Each side may file one 

consolidated motion, not to exceed 25 pages. July 25, 2019 

Pretrial Disclosures August 1, 2019 

Versata’s response to Ford’s claim construction brief 

(not to exceed 10 pages) (if Ford granted leave to file 

briefing). 

August 12, 2019 

Supplemental MILs. Each side may file up to 10 pages 

based on new issues raised in the other side’s pretrial 

disclosures. The parties shall meet and confer before 

filing any supplemental MILs. 

August 14, 2019 

MIL Responses (not to exceed 25 pages). 

Ford’s reply claim construction brief(not to exceed 5 

pages) (if Ford granted leave to file briefing). 

August 20, 2019 

Objections to pretrial disclosures August 27, 2019 

Responses to supplemental MILs. August 28, 2019 

Summary Judgment and Daubert Hearing re: PDO-R2 

Issues 

Proposed claim construction hearing re: ‘080 patent (if 

Ford granted leave to file briefing). 

August 28, 2019 at 

9:30 a.m. 

Deposition designations: objections to counter 

designations / provide counter-counter designations September 3, 2019 

Joint Final Pretrial Order September 26, 2019 
3 

Parties to submit Joint Bench Book, including jury 

instructions and verdict form, and courtesy copy of 

exhibit binders (see Dkt. No. 295) 

October 8, 2019 

Final Pretrial Conference October 15, 2019 at 

9:30 a.m. 

Trial November 5, 2019 at 

9:00 a.m. 

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: July 18, 2019 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on July 18, 2019, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
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 TorreyPines Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Evelyn A. Graham, Chief Executive 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 to my knowledge:



| | 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 financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Evelyn A. GrahamEvelyn A. GrahamChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


May 1, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.