alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cowdry & Co. *v.*Walker *& Tr.*

In foreign attachment a trustee is chargeable for a promissory note given after the service of the writ upon him, to the principal defendant, in advance for board, for the purpose of defeating the trustee process.

Foreign Attachment. The trustee boarded with the defendant at the agreed price of *$5*a week. About the first of each month he gave his promissory note to the defendant for the price of a month’s board in advance, at the expiration of the month sometimes paying and taking up the note, and sometimes paying the money for a month’s board in advance, and allowing the note to remain. This arrangement was made for the purpose of defeating the trustee process. One of the trustee’s notes was outstanding at the time of giving his disclosure.

*Wheeler,*for the plaintiffs.

*Dodge,*for the trustee.

Clark, J.

It appears that the trustee was not indebted to the principal defendant at the time of the service of the plaintiffs’ writ. But under our statute, except in certain specified cases, a trustee is chargeable not only for funds in his hands when summoned, but also for whatever may come into his hands or become due from him to the defendant between the time of the service of the writ and the disclosure. G. L., *c.*249, s. 22. When summoned, the trustee was boarding with the defendant, and continued to board with him up to the time of the disclosure. After the service of the writ, the trustee, at the request of the defendant, about the first of each month paid his board in advance, sometimes in money and sometimes by note; and at the time of the disclosure the trustee had paid all the notes except one.

For the money paid in advance for board the trustee is not chargeable, because at the time of the payment it was neither money of the defendant in his hands, nor was it a debt due from him to the defendant. It is otherwise as to the notes. They were made after the writ was served, and, with one exception, have been paid. It does not appear from the disclosure to whom they were paid, or who is the holder of the note now outstanding, and it is not material. If the note is held by a third party, it was not transferred to him before the service of the writ upon the trustee. G. L., *c.*249, *s.*17. But whatever may be the rights of the holder of such a note, which we do not decide, the giving and payment of the notes being for the purpose of defeating the trustee process was in fraud of the plaintiffs, and the trustee is chargeable for the *534amount of the notes given to the defendant after the service of the writ upon him as trustee.

*Trustee chargeable.*

Foster, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Exhibit 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 Group Management Corp
(the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Lamar Sinkfield, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of
operations of the
Company.

/s/ Lamar Sinkfield
    ---------------------------
    Lamar Sinkfield
    Chief Executive Officer

May 15, 2003
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00156

- CR

William Thomas Hargis v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 28th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR14001108

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considere d this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
March 10 , 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND FROM THE
INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE EPS DATA HAS BEEN RESTATED TO REFLECT THE ADOPTION OF
SFAS 128.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,474
<ALLOWANCES>                                       240
<INVENTORY>                                      7,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,131
<PP&E>                                          26,369
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,921
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,823
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            47
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,931)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,870
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,979
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,675
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   240
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,775)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        27
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,803)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,803)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 97 (Monday, May 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2528]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, June 29, 2007.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-2528 Filed 5-17-07; 11:21 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

Deborah S. Hunt 

Clerk

100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 

POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE 

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 

Tel. (513) 564-7000 

www.ca6.uscourts.gov

 Filed: June 21, 2021 

 

Ms. Kinikia D. Essix 

Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit 

231 W. Lafayette Boulevard 

Fifth Floor Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse 

Detroit, MI 48226-0000 

 Re: Case No. 20-1137, USA v. Paul Nicoletti

Originating Case No. : 2:15-cr-20382-1 

Dear Clerk, 

 Enclosed is a copy of the mandate filed in this case. 

 Sincerely yours, 

 

 

s/Maria T. Welker 

Case Manager 

Direct Dial No. 513-564-7025 

cc: Mr. Donald Capparella 

 Mr. Craig A. Weier 

 Mr. Tyler Chance Yarbro 

Enclosure 

 

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 228, PageID.3543 Filed 06/21/21 Page 1 of 2 Case: 20-1137 Document: 57 Filed: 06/21/2021 Page: 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

 

________________ 

 No: 20-1137 

________________

 

 Filed: June 21, 2021 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 Plaintiff - Appellee 

v. 

PAUL J. NICOLETTI 

 Defendant - Appellant 

 

MANDATE 

 Pursuant to the court's disposition that was filed 03/18/2021 the mandate for this case hereby 

issues today. 

 

COSTS: None 

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 228, PageID.3544 Filed 06/21/21 Page 2 of 2 Case: 20-1137 Document: 57 Filed: 06/21/2021 Page: 2
EX-10.02






Exhibit 10.02




AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated as of February 8, 2005 (this “Amendment”),
amends the Employment Agreement, entered into as of March 11, 2000, amended as of November 20, 2002
and further amended as of March 9, 2004 (as so amended, the “Agreement”), by and between Joseph R.
Martin (the “Executive”) and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
“Corporation”). Terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.



FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:



1. Extension of Renewal Term. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 1(a),
Section 26 or elsewhere in the Agreement, (a) the current Renewal Term is hereby extended until
June 15, 2005 or such other date within 60 days before or after such date as the Board of Directors
of the Corporation and the Executive shall determine consistent with the Corporation’s succession
plan (the definition of Renewal Term is hereby amended to include the remainder of the current term
together with such extension) and (b) the Consulting Period shall begin immediately following the
Renewal Term and shall end one year later.



2. DSU Settlement Date. With respect to the settlement of any deferred stock units held by the
Executive, if any Settlement Date (as defined in the definitive documentation relating to such
units) corresponds with the termination of Executive’s employment with the Corporation, then such
Settlement Date shall instead occur within five business days after the six month anniversary of
such termination, in accordance with Sections 409A(a)(2)(A)(i) and 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Internal
Revenue Code. Furthermore, for purposes of any such settlements, any element of the contractual
definition of Change in Control that is inconsistent with the definition of Change in Control in
Notice 2005-1, or that otherwise emerges under Section 409A(a)(2)(A)(v) of the Internal Revenue
Code, shall be disregarded.



3. Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall
not be changed and shall continue in full force and effect according to its terms. Without limiting
the generality of the foregoing, any rights of the Executive under the Agreement prior to its
amendment hereby and not expressly modified by this Amendment shall not be adversely affected by
this Amendment. This Amendment shall modify any deferred stock unit agreement, deferred stock
settlement election or other agreement between the Company and the Executive to the extent
necessary to give effect to its terms. From and after the effective date of this Amendment, all
references in the Agreement shall be deemed to be references to the Agreement as modified hereby.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to be effective as of date first
set forth above.




FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION




By /s/ Kirk P. Pond




	 	 	 	Its President and Chief Executive Officer






EXECUTIVE




 /s/ Joseph R. Martin




	 	 	 	Joseph R. Martin
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1536 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 117

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1536

                          [Report No. 104-225]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend for two years an 
expiring authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with respect to 
   determination of locality salaries for certain nurse anesthetist 
            positions in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 2, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

                                                 Union Calendar No. 117
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1536

                          [Report No. 104-225]

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend for two years an 
expiring authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with respect to 
   determination of locality salaries for certain nurse anesthetist 
            positions in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 1995

Mr. Hutchinson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

                             August 2, 1995

Additional sponsors: Mr. Stump, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Bilirakis, 
Mr. Stearns, Mr. Barr, Mr. Cooley, Mr. Evans, Mr. Filner, Ms. Brown of 
      Florida, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Mascara, Mr. Flanagan, and Mr. Quinn

                             August 2, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend for two years an 
expiring authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with respect to 
   determination of locality salaries for certain nurse anesthetist 
            positions in the Department of Veterans Affairs.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 
7451(d)(3)(C)(iii) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking out ``April 1, 1995'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``December 
31, 1997''.
```
#### § 201.52 Additional time after service by mail.

Whenever service of a document has been made by mail in accordance with § 201.43 three (3) days shall be added to the prescribed period for answer.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN CHORAZYCZEWSKI,

Petitioner, Case No. 2:15-cv-12754

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.

SHERMAN CAMPBELL,

Respondent.

_______________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER’S COUNSEL

TO CLARIFY THE ISSUES BEING RAISED IN THE PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Kevin Chorazyczewski, (“petitioner”), seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his application, filed by attorney Frank G.

Becker, petitioner challenges his conviction for unarmed robbery, M.C.L.A. §

750.530; and being a third felony habitual offender, M.C.L.A. § 769.11. The petition

for writ of habeas corpus is twenty four pages long and divided into forty seven

paragraphs containing numerous factual allegations. Petitioner’s counsel, however,

does not specify the claims that he wishes to raise in his petition, and the Court is

having difficulty discerning the precise claims Petitioner seeks to raise. 

1

2:15-cv-12754-MFL-PTM Doc # 6 Filed 02/02/17 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1217
Where, as here, there is confusion about the claims being raised by a habeas

petitioner, a district court should order the habeas petitioner to articulate the specific

claims that he or she wishes to raise in his or her petition. See Franklin v. Rose, 765

F. 2d 82, 85 (6th Cir. 1985).

Petitioner’s counsel is ORDERED to file a statement specifically identifying

the claims raised in the petition. Counsel should not provide any additional legal

arguments. The Court simply wants a list precisely identifying each specific claim

presented. Petitioner shall file the list by February 17, 2017. 

/s/Matthew F. Leitman

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: February 2, 2017

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

and/or counsel of record on February 2, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary

mail.

s/Holly A. Monda

Case Manager

(313) 234-5113

2

2:15-cv-12754-MFL-PTM Doc # 6 Filed 02/02/17 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1218
#### § 502.705 Additional information.

The administrative law judge may require the submission of additional affidavits, documents, or memoranda from the Bureau of Enforcement or the licensee or applicant. [Rule 705.]
# V\5-& ELECTRONIC RECORD COA# 02-15-00145-CR OFFENSE: OTHER CRIMINAL 

### Johnathan Cooperv.The State of 

## STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Tarrant COA DISPOSITION: DISMISSED TRIAL COURT: 297th District Court DATE: 06/18/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1031532D



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS Johnathan Cooperv. The State of STYLE: Texas 

# PRO f>E CCA#: 

# Wf-/T FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: ilfffl^Xr JUDGE: 

## "<£K UMa4-<-. Petition 

### CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH: REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR
ELECTRONIC RECORD
AO 450 (Rev. 7/99) Judgment in a Civil Case CLOSED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SUNDANCE, INC., et al,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEMONTE FABRICATING, et al,

Defendant.

/

AMENDED JUDGMENT IN

 A CIVIL CASE

Case Number: 02-73543

Honorable Avern Cohn

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues were tried and the

jury rendered its verdict. Following the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter

of Law setting aside the portion of the jury verdict relating to the finding of invalidity.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that claim 1 of U.S. Patent 5, 026, 109 is valid.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that DeMonte Fabricating and QuickDraw Tarpaulin

Systems, Inc. literally infringes on claim 1 of U.S. Patent 5, 026, 109. 

Pursuant to Rule (77d), FRCivP

Copies have been mailed to:

the attorneys of record

Date November 27, 2006

nunc pro tunc May 01, 2006

nunc pro tunc September 20, 2006 as to finding of validity

David Weaver, Clerk of Court

s/Julie Owens

Deputy Clerk

2:02-cv-73543-AC Doc # 162 Filed 11/28/06 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 2569
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary 

          - [Transmittal No. 07-23] 

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-165 dated 21 July 1996. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604-6575 

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 07-23 with attached transmittal and policy justification. 

Dated: June 7, 2007. 

C.R. Choate, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. 

      ( print page 32625)          ( print page 32626)          ( print page 32627)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M 

[FR Doc. 07-2919 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
§ 58.01-35 Main propulsion auxiliary machinery. Auxiliary machinery vital to the main propulsion system must be provided in duplicate unless the system served is provided in independent duplicate, or otherwise provides continued or restored propulsion capability in the event of a failure or malfunction of any single auxiliary component. Note 1 to § 58.01-30 :
Partial reduction of normal propulsion capability as a result of malfunction or failure is acceptable if the reduced capability is not below that necessary for the vessel to run ahead at 7 knots or half speed, whichever is less, and is adequate to maintain control of the ship.
[CGD 81-030, 53 FR 17837, May 18, 1988, as amended by USCG-2020-0634, 89 FR 50172, June 12, 2024]