alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 10,236.

#### NICHOLLS v. WRIGHT.

[4 Crunch. C. C. 700.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March Term, 1830.

Usury — Commission on Drayt Discounted — Competency of Witness — Drawer AGAINST ACCEPTOB.

3. It is usury to take 2% Per cent, commission, besides the usual bank discount, on a draft at 45 days to renew a like draft which had been discounted by the plaintiff at the same rate, and which had been drawn to raise money upon, and had become payable to the plaintiff.

2. The drawer of an inland bill of exchange is not a competent witness in an action against the acceptor, to prove that it was given for an usurious consideration.

Assumpsit [by W. S. Nicholls] against [Thomas C. Wright] the acceptor of a draft for $200. dated January 11, 1834, payable 45 days after' date, drawn by Richard Wright, payable to his own order, and by him endorsed in blank. Defence, usury.

Mr. Redin, for defendant,

offered to examine Richard Wright, the drawer and endorser of the draft, to prove the usury; and cited Gaither v. Dee [Case No. 5,182], in this court, at June term, 1820.

Key & Dunlop, for plaintiff,

objected that a party to an instrument cannot be a witness to invalidate it. The supreme court of the United States in Bank of U. S. v. Dunn, 6 Pet. [31 U. S.] 51. overruled the doctrine of Jordaine v. Lashbooke, 7 Term R. 601, and set up that of Walton v. Shelley, 1 Term R. 206.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Crunch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(THRUSTON. Circuit Judge,

absent) rejected the witness, upon the authority of Bank of U. S. v. Dunn.

The evidence was. that this draft was given to take up a like draft at 00 days, which had been drawn and endorsed by the said Richard Wright, and accepted by the defendant to raise money upon, and which the plaintiff had discounted, by retaining the usual bank discount for 64 days, and a commission of 2)4 per cent., and paying to R. Wright $192.87. When that draft became payable, the plaintiff agreed to discount this new draft at 45 days, upon the same terms, namely, the usual bank discount. and a commission of *2y2*per cent., and refused to allow more favorable terms; the drawer agreed to them, and it was accordingly discounted by the plaintiff on those terms.

THE COURT (THRUSTON. Circuit Judge, absent) on the prayer of the defendant’s counsel, instructed the jury, in effect, that if they found the facts to be so. the trans-ac.ion was usurious, and the plaintiff could not recover thereupon.

Verdict for the defendant.
No. 58242.

protests 208514-K, etc. (New York).

#### Aco Products Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the paper napkins the subject of *Wesley & Winter, Inc.*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 24, C. D. 1575). Upon the agreed statement of facts and following the cited authority, it was held that the merchandise is dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 1413, as modified, *supra.*
BEFORE THE FIRST DIVISION,

SEPTEMBER 29, 1960

No. 64591.

#### S. S. Kresge Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 264022-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation by counsel that the merchandise consist of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order to Seal Polygraph/U.S. v. Michael A. Jordan, et al. - 1

CR05-5823RBL

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 700

TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402

(253) 428-3800

Judge Leighton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) CR05-5823RBL

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER TO SEAL

)

MICHAEL A. JORDAN, )

THOMAS EVANS DUNIGAN, and )

MARKUS V. MOORE, )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________ )

Having read the Government’s Motion in Limine regarding Polygraph

Examination and Results in the above-captioned case, which was filed under seal, and

Government’s Motion to Seal requesting that the Motion in Limine be allowed to

remain under seal,

It is hereby ORDERED that the Motion in Limine regarding Polygraph

Examination and Results in this matter shall remain sealed.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cr-05823-RBL Document 163 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

September 25, 1967

No. P67/314.

#### Irving W. Rice & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 66/19676, etc. (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of finished glass atomizer bases; that the merchandise in its imported condition possesses no independent function and is solely used when attached to and assembled with other substantial components thereby comprising a complete atomizer; and following the principles set forth in *William*Adams, *Inc.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 429, C.D. 2670), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
February 3, 1958

No. 61549.

Suit 4910.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States.

C. D. 1826 reversed December 13, 1957. C. A. D. 670.
##### 



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 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SPARTA, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended April 4, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David E. Schreiman,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, in my capacity as an officer
of the Company pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the
financial statements included in the report. May 11, 2004 /s/ David E. SchreimanDavid E. SchreimanChief Financial Officer
DuPont Chemicals and Fluoroproducts
Chambers Works Deepwater, NJ 08023

July 22, 2010

Document Control Office US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
EPA East
Room 6428 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

Re: EPA – HQ – OPPT – 2003 - 0012
DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100
PFOA Data Submittal – Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples April and May 2010 Sample Data

Dear Document Control Office:

As per Part IV, Section G.5.a of the NJPDES permit, we are submitting a summary of PFOA analytical results for th e weekly grab samples taken at in ternal outfall DSN662A to NJDEP on a monthly basis. Per your request, we are sending you a paper and el ectronic copy of the report for samples taken during April and May 2010. We will con tinue to send you the reports each month.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (856) 540-3015.

Sincerely,

Joe Greenfield
SHE Consultant – Environmental
DuPont Chambers Works

EnclosuresCopies to:

Director, Chemical Control Division US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
EPA East
Room 4146 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004

Ms. Susan Rosenwinkel (cover letter only) Principal Environmental Engineer NJDEP Division of Water Quality Bureau of Point Source Permitting – Region 2
401 E. State Street
P.O. Box 029 Trenton, NJ 08625-0029
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

JUN 2 9 2015 

Mr. Tim Hendrix 

Manager, Certification & Airworthiness 

The Boeing Company 

2401 E. Wardlow Road 

Long Beach, CA 90807-5309 

Dear Mr. Hendrix: 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057-3356 

We have received your letter no. CP-L4L-15-00 191 , dated May 21, 2015, petitioning for 

exemption from the requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR) 

25.901 (c) at Amendment 25-126, and 25.981 (a)(3) at Amendment 25-125. 

The exemption, if granted, would allow planned changes for the 757-200 (freighters only) 

and 757-200PF center-wing-tank Fuel Quantity Indication System (FQIS) fuselage wiring 

installation. 

Your petition, which you submitted to the Department of Transportation's Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) at regulations.gov, is in docket no. FAA-2015-2021. 

We are in the process of reviewing your request, and will contact you ifwe need additional 

information. 

If you have questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please 

contact Mike Dostert at 425-227-2132, or e-mail mike.dostert@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Mark Forseth 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service
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





In connection with the Annual Report of Bonanza Goldfields Corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Stojsavljevich, Principle Accounting 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 the best of my knowledge:





(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.






BONANZA GOLDFIELDS CORPORATIONBy:
/s/ Michael StojsavljevichMichael StojsavljevichPrinciple Accounting OfficerSeptember 28, 2012
From: Jkarkowski1@tampabay.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:12:17 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Joe Krakowski

Palmetto, FL 34221
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 9, 2021

t0324

Order 

Clerk

April 9, 2021

161042

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161042

COA: 345687

Macomb CC: 2017-002185-FC

TRAVIS DUANE PARKINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of January 20, 2021, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the January 7, 2020 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, 

we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals, VACATE the sentence of 

the Macomb Circuit Court, and REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing. 

As noted by dissenting Judge Shapiro, the trial court did not justify its sentence with 

appropriate reasons for sentencing the defendant as it did. The trial court simply stated 

that the sentencing guidelines range was inappropriate, but failed to explain how the 

guidelines variables did not adequately account for the seriousness of the offense or the 

character of the offender. See People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 660 (1990). Nor did 

the trial court adequately explain, for purposes of enabling appellate review, how the 

extent of the departure — a life sentence out of a guidelines range of 51 to 85 months —

was justified, particularly in light of the defendant’s minimal prior record. People v 

Smith, 482 Mich 292, 304 (2008). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, 

because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed 

by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
Exhibit 10.37

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of October 20, 2017 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Summer Energy Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Employer”), and Jaleea George (“Employee”). 

RECITALS

A. Employer and Employee are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2017 (the “Employment Agreement”).  Unless otherwise indicated, all capitalized terms herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Employment Agreement; and 

 

B.Pursuant to Section 9 of the Employment Agreement, Employer and Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Amendment.   

  

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, Employer and Employee hereby agree as follows: 

1.Exhibit A to the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the second bullet point in section 5 of Exhibit A and replacing it in its entirety with the following language:   

Beginning on and measured from October 1, 2017, and continuing through the term of this Agreement, Employee will be granted a fully-vested option to purchase 15,000 shares of Employer’s common stock each calendar quarter, provided Summer LLC’s (i) quarterly commercial sales volume exceeds 22,500,000 KWh for such quarter (as measured by the ERCOT Commercial Rolling Metrics report) and (ii) EBITDA after SG&A expenses, divided by Gross Profit, each as set forth on Employer’s internal energy schedule, exceeds 9.0% for such quarter.  Provided such metrics were met for a particular quarter, Employer will grant said options as promptly as possible following the end of such fiscal quarter with a strike price equal to the greater of (i) the fair market value of a share of stock on the date of grant, and (ii) $2.50 per share.  Such option will be granted pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Stock Option Grant Agreement and the Employer’s 2015 Stock Option and Stock Award Plan.  Upon the occurrence of a Change of Control (as defined in this Agreement, as amended), unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, the incentive compensation described in this paragraph shall terminate.  

2.All other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the Effective Date.

 

EMPLOYER:EMPLOYEE: 

 

SUMMER ENERGY HOLDINGS, INC.

a Nevada corporation/s/ Jaleea George 

Jaleea George 

By:/s/ Neil Leibman 

Name:Neil Leibman 

Title:CEO 


1
Case No. 7,649.

#### KEILER v. LESSFORD et ux.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 190.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1819.

Slander — Charge of Unchastity — Special Damages.

Words, charging the plaintiff, a single woman, with incontinence, are not actionable without an allegation of special damage.

TCited in Pollard v. Lyon, 91 U. S. 235.]

This was an action for words spoken by the defendant’s wife, charging the plaintiff [Sarah S. Iveiler], with gross incontinence. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff with 130 dollars damages.

Mr. Key, for defendants,

[John Lessford and wife], moved in arrest of judgment, contending that the words were not actionable per se in this country, as the plaintiff could not be liable to punishment, nor even to ecclesiastical censure, for fornication.

Mr. Jones, for plaintiff,

cited 3 Bl. Comm. 123, 124; 6 Bac. Abr. 221; Medhurst v. Ba-lara, 1 Roll. Abr. 35, p. 1, 20, and Davis’ Case, 4 Coke, 16, 17.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief J udge.]

THE COURT,

having taken time to consider, arrested the judgment, at October term, 1S22, because the words were not actionable without special damages.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DAVID KING and RHONDA KING,

husband and wife,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

KALAMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 402,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5675 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court sua sponte.

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:

As part of the Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [Dkt. #17], the Kalama School

District sought Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions arguing that the motion was not “warranted by existing law or by

a non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new

law.” Id., Def.’s Oppo. at p. 3. Defendant also sought to strike portions of plaintiffs’ counsel’s affidavit in

support of the motion. In the Order denying the motion to remand [Dkt. #22] this Court did not address the

motions for sanctions or to strike. Although defendant’s removal to this Court was proper and plaintiffs’ 

Case 3:05-cv-05675-RBL Document 31 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

motion to remand was appropriately denied, this Court cannot say that the motion was frivolous and therefore

declines to award sanctions. The motion to strike is also denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 4th day of January, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05675-RBL Document 31 Filed 01/04/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

August 7, 1958

No. 62272.

#### Aluminum Import Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 220483-K (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of aluminum alloys similar in all material respects to those the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(45 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 670), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JOHN FLORA,

Petitioner,

v.

SANDRA CARTER,

Respondents.

Case No. C06-5020RBL

 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the

remaining record, does hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The petition is DISMISSED. 

(3) The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, counsel for

respondent, and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05020-RBL Document 20 Filed 01/05/07 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

February 21, 1966

No. 69802.

protest 63/7238 (Los Angeles).

#### Bardon of Hollywood *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of untrimmed adult sweaters, knitted or crocheted, in chief value of wool, and valued over $5 per pound, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 63365.

protests 58/22299, etc. (New York).

#### Allerton Importers, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Moluson, J.

The protests were dismissed.