alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 14,437.

#### UNITED STATES v. AMADOR.

[Hoff. Land Cas. 76.] 1

District Court, N. D. California.

Dec. Term, 1855.

Mexican Land Grant — Validity.

The confirmation of this claim not disputed.

Claim [by José Maria Amador] for four leagues of land in Alameda county [part of the Rancho San Ramon], confirmed by the board, and appealed by the United States,

S. W. Inge, U. S. Atty.

E. W. E. Sloan, for appellee.

BY THE COURT.

The board of commissioners have confirmed this claim without suggesting any doubt as to its entire validity. The genuineness of the grant is not disputed, and it appears to have been approved by the departmental assembly. The conditions have been fully complied with, and the premises granted have been the family residence of the grantee from a period prior to the issuing of the grant, and he has continued to cultivate and improve his land down to the present time. A part of his land has been conveyed by him to other parties, and he now asks for a confirmation of his claim to the remainder. A decree to that effect was made by the board of commissioners. A decree must therefore be entered in this court affirming the decision of the board and confirming the claimant’s title to the extent solicited.
Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT

 

THIS AMENDMENT is made as of the 25th day of October, 2016, to the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) by and between United Therapeutics Corporation (the “Company”) and James Edgemond (“Employee”) dated March 13, 2015.

 

WHEREAS, paragraph 6 of the Agreement provides that Employee is entitled to accrue 19 days of annual paid time off during his first year of employment and to additional accrued paid time off after each year of service in accordance with the Employee Handbook.

 

WHEREAS, Company policy allowed for accrued vacation to be carried over from year to year.

 

WHEREAS, the Company has determined to implement a discretionary time off program for certain employees under which they do not receive an annual accrual of paid vacation time but rather such employees may take paid vacation time at such times and in such increments as are agreed upon between the employee and his/her manager.

 

WHEREAS, on October 31, 2016, the Company will pay Employee for all of his heretofore accrued but unused vacation.

 

WHEREAS, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

 

1.              Elimination of Vacation Accrual.  The parties agree that Paragraph 6 of the Agreement shall be revised to provide that Employee shall participate the discretionary time off program or in whatever time off program or benefit as the Company may decide to offer to employees in Employee’s position.  Employee shall continue to receive paid Company holidays pursuant to Company policy.

 

2.              Effect. No other provisions of the Agreement shall be affected by this Amendment.

 

In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the date first written above.

 

	
JAMES EDGEMOND
    	
 
    	
UNITED THERAPEUTICS   CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ James Edgemond
    	
 
    	
/s/ Alyssa Friedrich
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name: Alyssa Friedrich
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title: SVP, Human   Resources and
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Corporate Devel.
No. 52979.

#### Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 131047-K, etc. (New York).

*275Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 38, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3962]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RR07-9-000]


North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing

February 27, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 23, 2007, The North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted its request for approval of 
violation risk factors for requirements in 89 of NERC's proposed 
Version 0 Reliability Standards, which were Submitted to the Commission 
April 2, 2006, pursuant to Section 215(d)(1) of the Federal Power Act 
and 18 CFR 39.5.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#24626176676b4a484d4a41775154544b565064424156470a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="11575443525e7f7d787f74426461617e636551777463723f767e67">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 29, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3962 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
(Reap. Dec. 10421)

#### Aut Customs Brokers, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 81747.

(Decided January 14, 1963)

*Allerton deO. Tomphins*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The merchandise the subject of the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement consists of unlined rubber knee boots, exported on August 18,1961, from France to the United States, said boots being specified on the final list (T.D. 54521), published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

*361Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeal for decision on stipulation, on the basis of which I find export value, as defined in section 402a (d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act, *supra,*to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the said boots and that such value is $1.22 per pair, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
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 of m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gabriel Kabazo, Chief
Financial Officer, 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 comply 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.

By: /s/Gabriel Kabazo
---------------------------------------
Gabriel Kabazo, Chief Financial Officer

Dated: May 15, 2006



                                       13
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re

THOMAS SEBASTIAN LOPILATO,

Debtor.

 /

Civ. S–04-1636 DFL

RELATED CASE ORDER

NICHOLAS SCOTT FOSTER, Civ. S-05-1965 GEB

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHEN M. REYNOLDS, LAW

OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. REYNOLDS,

ANNE WOLFE, and WOLFE REAL

ESTATE, 

Defendants.

 /

Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals they are

related within the meaning of Local Rule 83-123 (E.D. Cal. 2002). 

The parties should be aware that relating the cases under Local

Rule 83-123 merely has the result that both actions are assigned

Case 2:04-cv-01636-DFL Document 16 Filed 03/17/06 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

2

to the same judge; no consolidation of the actions is effected. 

Under the regular practice of this court, related cases are

generally assigned to the judge to whom the first-filed action

was assigned.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the action denominated Civ. S

05-1965 GEB is reassigned to District Judge David F. Levi for all

further proceedings. Henceforth the caption on all documents

filed in the reassigned case shall be shown as Civ. S 05-1965

DFL.

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court make

appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to

compensate for this reassignment.

DATED: 3/16/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01636-DFL Document 16 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2
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 FLATBUSH  FEDERAL BANCORP,  INC. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  we,
Anthony J. Monteverdi,  Chairman,  President and Chief Executive  Officer of the
Company and John S. Lotardo,  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
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 result of operations
            of the Company.

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



                                                      /s/ Anthony J. Monteverdi
                                                      -------------------------
                                                      Anthony J. Monteverdi
                                                      Chairman, President and
                                                      Chief Executive Officer


                                                      /s/ John S. Lotardo
                                                      -------------------------
                                                      John S. Lotardo
                                                      Senior Vice President and
                                                      Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 15, 2005
      ---------------

                                       20
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN C. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1684 DFL KJM

vs.

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL 

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Defendant’s motion to compel production of documents from subpoenaed nonparty Dr. Aikin came on regularly for hearing May 11, 2005. John Riestenberg appeared for 

plaintiff. Linda Oliver appeared for defendant. No appearance was made for Dr. Aikin. Upon 

review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel,

based upon Dr. Aikin’s declaration in which he states under penalty of perjury he does not 

maintain chart notes pertaining to plaintiff and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that:

1. The motion to compel is denied; and

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01684-DFL -KJM Document 29 Filed 05/16/05 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

2

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to Dr. Aikin at the

address shown in his filing of May 4, 2005. 

DATED: May 13, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01684-DFL -KJM Document 29 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 52287.

protests 119695-K/456, etc. (Chicago).

#### Philip Blum & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gaugers’ *308returns as verified by tlie affidavits of the importers. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 50456.

#### Protests 114681-K, etc., of Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial plaintiff limited its claims to the case of whisky covered by WHB-33751 and the two cases of whisky covered by WHB-33484 which were not landed in the United States. Counsel for plaintiff admitted that the affidavits of short shipment provided for under article 812, Customs *260Regulations of 1937, were not filed within the time prescribed. The issue before the court in shortage cases is whether or not it is in fact a nonimportation, and compliance with the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, as far as the court is concerned, is immaterial. Abstract 50268 and *Joseph Dixon Crucible Co.*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 71, C. D. 914) cited. Inasmuch as the evidence conclusively established that the three cases of liquor in question were not landed it was held that the importer is entitled to a refund in duties taken upon said three cases of liquor. The protests were sustained to this extent.
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

Attorney for Plaintiff 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES SANFORD, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JOHN A FORSTER AND LISA 

FORSTER, TRUSTEES OF THE 

FORSTER FAMILY TRUST; SHAM 

SIDHER AND ROMA SIDHER DBA 

QUIZNO’S, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. CIV.S. 04-1826 MCE GGH 

STIPULATION TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT AND ORDER 

THEREON 

The parties, subject to approval of the Court, stipulate as follows: 

1. Plaintiff has recently determined that JOHN FORSTER AND LISA 

FORSTER, Trustees of the FORSTER FAMILY TRUST are not the current 

owner of the property that is subject of this lawsuit. 

2. Defendant’s counsel has provided additional information regarding the 

Forster Family Trust named in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint indicating that 

LYNN HUBBARD, III, SBN 69773 

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD, IV, SBN 212970 

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

12 WILLIAMSBURG LANE 

CHICO, CA 95926 

Telephone: (530) 895-3252 

Facsimile: (530) 894-8244

Case 2:04-cv-01826-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 3
 

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

the Forster Family Trust has been dissolved. 

3. The correct owner’s names, are as follows: JOHN FORSTER (as an 

individual); RICHARD M. FORSTER Trustee of the RICHARD M. FORSTER 

FAMILY TRUST; and DANIEL S. FORSTER and DONNA J. FORSTER 

Trustees of the FORSTER FAMILY TRUST. 

4. Defendants JOHN FORSTER and SHAM SIDHER AND ROMA SIDHER 

dba QUIZNO’S shall not be required to file an answer to the amended complaint, 

and their answer on file in this matter shall be deemed responsive to the 

amended complaint. 

Dated: July 21, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

 /s/ Lynn Hubbard, Esquire / 

LYNN HUBBARD, III 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Dated: July 20, 2005 MCDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN 

 Signature on File / 

JULIE RANEY 

Attorney for Defendant JOHN FORSTER 

 

Dated: July 15, 2005 COOK BROWN LLP 

 Signature on File / 

 PAMELA LEWIS 

Attorney for Defendant SHAM SIDHER 

AND ROMA SIDHER DBA QUIZNO’S 

Case 2:04-cv-01826-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 07/27/05 Page 2 of 3
 

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

Good cause having been shown IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. Plaintiff shall Amend Complaint to add the current property owners: JOHN 

FORSTER (as an individual); RICHARD M. FORSTER, Trustee of the 

RICHARD M. FORSTER FAMILY TRUST; and DANIEL S. FORSTER and 

DONNA J. FORSTER, Trustees of the FORSTER FAMILY TRUST.

2. Defendants JOHN FORSTER and SHAM SIDHER AND ROMA SIDHER 

DBA QUIZNO’S are not required file an answer to the amended complaint 

and their answer on file in this matter shall be deemed responsive to the 

amended complaint. 

Date: July 27, 2005

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01826-MCE -GGH Document 22 Filed 07/27/05 Page 3 of 3
NUMBERS 13-16-00392-CR AND 13-16-00393-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

MARCUS ESEDE ALI, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On Appeal from the County Court No. 4

of Travis County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Appellant’s counsel, Rickey Jones, has filed a motion requesting to withdraw as 

counsel.1 According to his motion to withdraw, good cause exists for him to withdraw 

 

1 These appeals are before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant 

to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 

(West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). 
2

because he is now employed by the Travis County District Attorney’s Office. Counsel 

states that the job was offered to him after he had completed appellant’s brief, but before 

it was actually filed.

Adequate reason for the discharge of counsel and appointment of new counsel 

rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Carroll v. State, 176 S.W.3d 249, 255 

(Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd). In those circumstances where the 

appointment of substitute counsel may be necessary, an appellate court, when faced with 

a motion to withdraw, should abate the proceeding to the trial court for determination of 

this issue. Accordingly, we ABATE the appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court 

for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Upon remand, the trial court shall determine whether appellant’s court-appointed 

attorney should remain as appellant's counsel; and, if not, whether appellant is entitled to 

new appointed counsel. If the trial court determines that there is no reason to discharge 

appellant’s current appointed attorney and appoint substitute counsel, the court shall 

enter an order to that effect. If the trial court determines that new counsel should be 

appointed, the name, address, telephone number, email address, and state bar number 

of newly appointed counsel shall be included in the order appointing counsel. The trial 

court shall further cause its order to be included in a supplemental clerk's record to be 

filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of 

this order. 

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
2

Delivered and filed this

the 16th day of February, 2017.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 40 (Thursday, March 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3568]



[[Page 9336]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 26, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Richard Walker, Community 
Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 55882, Boston, Massachusetts 02106-2204:
    1. Butler Bancorp, MHC and Butler Bancorp, Inc., both of Lowell, 
Massachusetts; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of, and 
merge with, Marlborough Bancorp, MHC and thereby indirectly acquire 
voting shares of Marlborough Co-operative Bank, both of Marlborough, 
Massachusetts.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Glenda Wilson, Community 
Affairs Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. Cedar Bancorp, Inc. Mt. Vernon, Illinois; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Jeff City Bancorp, Inc., 
Mt. Vernon, Illinois and thereby indirectly acquire First National Bank 
of Mount Vernon, Mt. Vernon, Illinois.
    2. Freedom Bancorp, Huntingburg, Indiana; to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring 100 percent of Freedom Bank, Huntingburg, Indiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 23, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-3568 Filed 2-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
No. 48495.

#### Protests 98498-K, etc., of Thorens, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.