alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Euran H. Hobbs *vs.*Ivory L. Walker.

*Sheriff’s deed of an equity of redemption*— validity *of.*

A sheriff’s deed of an equity of redemption, executed at the time of the sale on execution, conveys to the purchaser all the judgment' debtor’s right, title, and interest in the premises, as against the debtor having legal notice of the sale, although the deed was not acknowledged, delivered or recorded until three months and fourteen days after the sale.

On exceptions.

Writ oe entry.

It was agreed that on July 8, 1868, the defendant being seized in fee of the demanded premises, conveyed them in mortgage to one Thompson, who on April 30, 1869, assigned and transferred the mortgage and note thereby secured to the plaintiff; that on Jan. 16, 1869, the equity of redeeming the premises from said *185mortgage was duly seized, notified, and sold by one Mitchell, a deputy-sheriff of this county, on an execution 'against the defendant, and the same was duly purchased by the plaintiff; that the officers’ deed conveying the same to the plaintiff was made on the day of sale, but was not acknowledged, delivered, or recorded until April 30, 1869.

All the proceedings prior to the execution of the officer’s deed were in due form.

The plaintiff claimed to have judgment for the premises by virtue of the mortgage and officer’s deed.

The defendant contended that judgment should go as on mortgage only, because the officer’s deed was not acknowledged, delivered, or recorded within the three months prescribed by R. S., 1857, c. 76, § 33.

The presiding judge oi’dered judgment for the plaintiff as on mortgage, and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.

*Ira T. Drew,*for the plaintiff.

*S. K. & B. F. Hamilton,*for the defendant.

Danforth, J.

The only question involved in this case is whether an officer’s deed of an equity of redemption, not recorded within three months, is void under R. S., 1857, c. 76, § 33. In *Houghton*v. *Bartholomew,*10 Met. 138, it was held that a similar deed-was good as against a subsequent purchaser with notice. Much: more would it seem to be good against the debtor, who, as the case-finds, had the legal notice of the sale.

The Statute of Massachusetts under which that decision was-made is the same as our own. The opinion in that case is elaborate, meeting every objection raised in the agreement, and is, in our opinion sound. *Fxeeptions*sustained-

Appleton, C. J.; Cutting, Walton, and Dickerson* JJ.5, concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,196
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,530
<PP&E>                                          35,780
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,772
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,272
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,455
<SALES>                                          9,954
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                            6,088
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,418
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,391)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CHARLES LEE GLOVER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-2326

February 16, 2024

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge.

Charles Lee Glover, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, LaROSE, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4007

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Joseph Paul Marshall, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 22, 2006

Filed: August 25, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Joseph Paul Marshall admitted violating the conditions of his supervised

release, the district court1

 revoked it and sentenced him to 15 months in prison and 2

years of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that this sentence exceeds the legal

maximum because he received a 3-year term of supervised release when he was

originally sentenced in 1998. We disagree. “For those defendants whose offense of

conviction occurred after the 1994 changes [to the supervised release statute], the

available supervised release term is not measured by the term initially imposed by the
-2-

district court, . . . but by the term authorized in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b) for the offense of

conviction, minus the aggregate amount of any revocation terms of imprisonment.”

United States v. Palmer, 380 F.3d 395, 398-99 (8th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Marshall’s

instant revocation sentence, added to his earlier revocation prison term of 12 months,

does not exceed the 60-month lawful maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(1) and (h).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report of Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004, I, Evan J.
Griffith, 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:

(a) This quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b) The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date:  August 13, 2004

                                                     /s/ Evan J. Griffith
                                                     Evan J. Griffith
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
### The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Anto nio, Texas** 

September 16, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00374

- CR

Luis Arnaldo BAEZ

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR6881 Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

On May 23, 2014 , a ppellant filed his notice of appeal with this court

. On July 24, 2014, appellant filed notice with this court that the court reporter fees were paid. On August 25, 2014,
Delcine M. Benavides filed a nine volume reporter’s record.

On September 10, 2014, court reporter Mary Beth Simpkins filed a late notice of record indicating that appellant has failed to pay the fee or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing
the record.

W e ORDER appel lant to provide written proof to this court within ten days of the date of this
order that the reporter’s record has been requested and either (1) the Ms. Simpkins’ reporter ’ s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter ’ s fee

, or ( 2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter ’ s fee.

If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, appellant ’ s brief will be due within thirty days from the date of this order, and the court will only consider those issues or p oints raised in appellant ’ s brief that do not require Ms. Simpkins’ reporter ’ s record for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of t he said court on this 16th day of September, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>0001050934
<NAME>TWP CAPITAL CORP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,840
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,192)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,905
<PP&E>                                           6,732
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,927)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,855
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,172
<BONDS>                                        216,828
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (188,146)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,855
<SALES>                                         60,208
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,208
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,568
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    13
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,601
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,775
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,800)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  4,791
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,591)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

I,David Merclean, certify that:

 

##### (1)  I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mercer Insurance Group, Inc.;

#####  

##### (2)  Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

#####  

##### (3)  Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

#####  

##### (4)  Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

#####  

###### (i)  designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

######  

###### (ii)  evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

######  

###### (iii)  disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

######  

##### (5)  Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing equivalent functions):

#####  

###### (i)  all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

----

 

###### (ii)  any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

######  

| Dated: August 13,  2004 | By:    | /s/David B. Merclean    |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                         |   | David B. Merclean,      |
|                         |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit  32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                               (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)


     Pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  (18
U.S.C.ss.1350),  the  undersigned,  Alan  Irwin,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and
President  of  Crown  International,  Inc./FL,  a  Florida  corporation  (the
"Company"),  does  hereby  certify,  to  his  knowledge,  that:

     The  Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2004 of the
Company  (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the  Report  fairly  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and  results  of  operations  of  the  Company.


Date:    13 July, 2004           By: /s/ Alan Irwin
                                         ----------------------------------
                                         President, Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
# Comment Tracker

Executive Summary

Geospatial Platform Value Proposition

Background

Concept of Operations

Governance and Organizational Approach

Costs and Funding Model

Risk Management

Measuring Performance

Appendix A: Benefits of the Geospatial Platform

Appendix B: Risk Register

Appendix C: Risk Worksheet

Appendix D: Guide to Risk Identification and Assessment

Appendix E: Performance Measure Definition Template

Reference Document 1: Past Geospatial Initiatives and Lessons Learned

Reference Document 2: Geospatial Platform Service Offerings Described

Reference Document 3: Concept of Operations for User Functionality
Exhibit 99.1


CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Human Pheromone  Sciences,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  we,
William P.  Horgan.  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company  and  Gregory S.
Fredrick, 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 1394; 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/ William P. Horgan
------------------------
May 13, 2003

/s/ Gregory S. Fredrick
------------------------
May 13, 2003


                                       20
No. 49918.

#### Protests 73676-K, etc., of Armand Schwab & Co., Inc., et al. (New York.)

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract Í5400 the court dismissed the protests.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.3


Amendment No. 1


Pfizer 2004 Stock Plan


As Amended and Restated
(through February 23, 2012)


* * *


(Deletions crossed out)


1.Section 10(d) of the Pfizer 2004 Stock Plan shall be deleted in its entirety:


Section 162(m) Deferrals. Except for Other Stock Unit Awards which are subject to the satisfaction of performance goals, any outstanding Other Stock Unit Awards that are scheduled to be settled or otherwise paid to a Participant during a taxable year in which such Participant is, or is likely to be, a Covered  Employee, shall automatically be deferred into the Pfizer Inc Deferred Compensation Plan, as Amended and Restated, effective January 1, 2008, in accordance with the terms of such plan and in compliance with the applicable provisions of Section 409A until the earlier of (i) the first day of the Participant’s first taxable  year in which the Company reasonably anticipates that if the payment is made during such year, the  deduction of such payment by the Company will not be barred by the application of Code Section 162(m), or the Participant’s Separation from Service. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any such payment may not be made to a Key Employee upon a Separation from Service before the date which is 6 months after the date of the Key Employee's Separation from Service (or, if earlier, the date of death of the Key Employee).




2.Nothing in this amendment shall be deemed to modify or affect (i) Awards that are grandfathered, or any grandfathered amounts, for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (the “Code”), or (ii) grandfathered benefits or amounts under Section 409A of the Code.


3.To the extent required by the preamble to the 2019 Proposed Regulations under Section 162(m) of the Code (REG-122180-18, 84 Fed. Reg. 70356, 70369 (Dec. 20, 2019)), the Company shall cause the payment of previously deferred amounts that would have been required to be paid prior to December 31, 2020 to be made no later than December 31, 2020.
Exhibit 31.1**Certifications Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Kenneth C. Budde, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Stewart Enterprises, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) [Intentionally omitted.]  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal 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 operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:May 4, 2006      /s/KENNETH C. BUDDE     Kenneth C. Budde  President and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report
of QI Systems Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended June 30,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Mesbah Taherzadeh, President and acting Principal Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Mesbah Taherzadeh
President and acting Principal Executive Officer
February 3, 2003
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---