alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN RE THE PETITION OF THE * IN THE 

LIFER FAMILY SUPPORT NETWORK,

LORIE FRIEND, AND JULIE MAGERS * COURT OF APPEALS

FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT

* OF MARYLAND 

* Misc. No. 20

* September Term, 2019

ORDER

WHEREAS, on April 6, 2020, Petitioners filed a pleading entitled Petition for an 

Extraordinary Writ (“Petition”) and on April 8, 2020, filed an Amended Petition for an 

Extraordinary Writ (“Amended Petition”), neither of which names any respondents; and

WHEREAS, the Court is cognizant that the Chief Judge will issue shortly an 

administrative order pursuant to the Maryland Constitution, Article IV, §18, and Maryland 

Rules 16-105(b) and 16-1001 et seq., which will provide direction and guidance to the 

Administrative Judges of the respective judicial circuits and districts of the District Court 

of Maryland in connection with important health concerns affecting inmates detained in or 

incarcerated in jails and correctional facilities in Maryland during the COVID-19 virus 

pandemic; it is this 10th day of April, 2020

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals, that the Amended Petition be and is hereby 

DISMISSED.

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera

Chief Judge
/s/ Robert N. McDonald

/s/ Shirley M. Watts

/s/ Michele D. Hotten

/s/Joseph M. Getty

/s/ Brynja M. Booth

/s/ Jonathan Biran
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Borough of Walnutport :

:

v. :

:

Timothy Dennis, :

Appellant : No. 1803 C.D. 2014

O R D E R

NOW, August 24, 2015, having considered appellant’s application for 

reargument, the application is denied.

 

 DAN PELLEGRINI,

 President Judge
(Reap. Dec. 10424)

#### Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 2892; 3402.

(Decided January 14, 1963)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

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

Oltvee, Chief Judge:

The above-enumerated appeals for reap-praisement were submitted for decision upon stipulation of counsel, reading as follows:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, subject to the approval of the court, that the reappraisement appeals specified above, are limited to the items identified on the invoices with the sizes 48” x 30” or the size 60” x 30”, and that said items consist of birch plywood from Finland of the same kind,in all material respects, and subject to the same marketing and sales conditions as the merchandise and the conditions that were the subject of decision in the case of *United States*v. *Arbit Trading Company,*46 Cust. Ct. 785, A.R.D. 131, and that the record in said cited ease may be received into evidence in the appeals set forth above.

> That at or about the dates of exportation such and similar plywood was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Finland; and the prices at which it was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Finland in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice prices as set forth in the invoices covered by the above reappraisement appeals, less prorated the items of ocean freight insurance and consular fees as set forth in said invoices.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the values of the birch plywood, to which the appeals for reappraisement have been limited, and that such values are the invoice prices, as set forth on the invoices, less prorated the items of ocean freight, insurance, and consular fees, as set forth in said invoices.

As to all other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed, and judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 49180.

#### Protests 796285-G, etc., of C. Landriani (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was established that the vegetable coloring in question was extracted from the skin of grapes by means of a solvent. In accordance therewith and following *International Grape Products Co.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 43, C. D. 421), which record was incorporated herein, the claim at 15 percent under paragraph 38 was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit 11

11. Statement re computation of per share earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            Year ended     Year ended     Year ended
                                           September 30,  September 30,  September 30,
                                              1998           1997           1996

<S>                                        <C>           <C>            <C>
Net income (loss) in thousands                 $5,004           $790        $(5,440)

Weighted average shares outstanding         7,799,507      7,588,094      7,360,412

Assumed exercise of stock options, 
 weighted average of incremental shares       171,758        260,895             --

Assumed purchase of stock under stock
 purchase plan, weighted average               94,024         17,761             --

Diluted shares-adjusted weighted-
average shares and assumed conversions      8,065,289      7,866,750      7,360,412

Basic earnings (loss per share                   $.64           $.10         $ (.74)

Diluted earnings (loss) per share                $.62           $.10         $ (.74)
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23



                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Kollmorgen Corporation:



  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of Kollmorgen Corporation on Form S-3 (No. 2-90655), on
Form S-8 (No. 2-64648), on Form S-8 (No. 33-44229), on Form S-8
(No. 33-48953), on Form S-8 (No.333-21409) and on Form S-8 (No. 333-21379)
of our report dated January 27, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements of Kollmorgen Corporation as of December 31, 1996,
and 1995, and for the three years in the period ended December 31, 1996,
which report is included in the 1996 Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                               COOPERS & LYBRAND, L.L.P.

                               /s/  Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Boston, Massachusetts
March 25, 1997
PROMISSORY NOTE - SALARY


 


Renewal of Dec 31, 2011 note


 


$415,657.03Date: October
20, 2016


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Skinvisible, Inc., of 6320 South Sandhill Road, Suite 10, Las Vegas, NV 89120 promises to pay
to the order of Terry Howlett (“Note Holder”), whose address
is,


or such other place as the Note
Holder may designate in writing to the undersigned, the principal sum of Four Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty
Seven Dollars and Three Cents ($415,657.03), together with interest thereon from date hereof until paid, at the rate of ten percent
(10%) per annum as follows: The entire principal and interest amount shall be repaid on or before December 31, 2019.


 


All or any part of the aforesaid
principal sum may be prepaid at any time and from time to time without penalty.


 


Upon written request by Lender,
the principal of this loan may be converted to common shares of Skinvisible, Inc. at the price of One Cents ($0.01) per
share at any time up until December 31, 2019. In addition, the Company will issue a warrant agreement in the name of your
designate, which will give the holder the right to purchase further shares at Two Cents ($0.02) per share if exercised within
3 years following the conversion date. The warrant agreement will give the holder the right to purchase one share for every two
shares acquired by the holder in this transaction for an aggregate total of Twenty Million Seven Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand
Eight Hundred (20,782,800) additional shares at the above price.


 


This note is made and executed under, and is in all
respects governed by, the laws of the State of Nevada.





 





 


Skinvisible, Inc.
Case No. 13,798.

#### TAYLOR v. MOORE et al.

[5 Cranch, C. C. 317.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1837.

Assignment — Death op Assignoh — Rents.

An assignment of rents, with a power of attorney to collect them as they shall become due, is a valid assignment in equity, although the assignor should die before they are collected.

Chancery attachment.

CRANCH, Chief Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill states that ,W. S. Moore was in debt to the plaintiff [Harrison Taylor] $55, and that James Green was indebted to Moore in a larger amount; that Moore was an absent debtor, and that Green resided in Alexandria. The attachment was served on the 19th of July, 1830. Moore died some time in September, 1830. The attachment was returnable to November term, 1830. Green, in his answer, admits that on the 19th of July, 1830, he was indebted to Moore $208.83%, and afterwards paid to Thomas Irwin, Jr., executor of Thomas Irwin, deceased, $217.83%, which he claimed under1 a power of attorney from Moore. This settlement of the rents with Green was made on *784the 17th of September, 1830, the account having been made up to the 18th of July, 1830, and left with Green by Irwin on the 5th of July, 1S30, and paid by Green on the 2d of October, 1830, after the death of Moore. It appeared by Irwin’s answer that Moore, being largely indebted to him as executor of Thomas Irwin, deceased, on the 1st of May, 1827, for the purpose of making some provision for the payment of the debt, agreed to appropriate towards the payment thereof, the rents of Moore’s property in Alexandria which had been before conveyed to R. I. Taylor, in trust to secure the debt; and in pursuance of that agreement gave the defendant, Irwin, a letter of attorney to enable him to collect the rents and apply them towards the payment of the debt; accompanied by a letter to Mr. R. I. Taylor, of the same date, namely, May • 1, 1827. The rents in question became wholly due in the lifetime of Moore, while the letter of attorney was in full force, and Mr. Irwin had a legal right to receive them and apply them to his own use as executor, and Green was bound to pay them to him before the attachment was levied.

Equity will consider that as done which ought to have been done. The power of attorney and letter to Mr. Taylor, and the answer of Mr. Irwin, are evidence of an assignment of those rents to Mr. Irwin; so that at the time of the attachment', Mr. Irwin and not Mr. Moore was the creditor of Green, and there was nothing in his hands upon which the attachment could operate.

The court being of this opinion, it is not necessary to decide upon the other objection made by Mr. Taylor, the defendant’s counsel, that the attachment was dissolved by the death of Mr. Moore before the return of the writ. The plaintiff’s bill must be dismissed, with costs.
No. 63121.

#### B. Altman *& Co.*et al. *v.*United States,

protests 326553-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 2:04-cv-01603-GEB-DAD   Document 16    Filed 08/22/05   Page 1 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01603-GEB-DAD   Document 16    Filed 08/22/05   Page 2 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01603-GEB-DAD   Document 16    Filed 08/22/05   Page 3 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01603-GEB-DAD   Document 16    Filed 08/22/05   Page 4 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01603-GEB-DAD   Document 16    Filed 08/22/05   Page 5 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01603-GEB-DAD   Document 16    Filed 08/22/05   Page 6 of 6

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-24T00:40:21-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Before the Third Division,

February 9, 1944

No. 49192.

#### Protests 949818-G, etc., of F. M. Nonaka & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the commodity in question is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Pacific Trading Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 221, C. D. 610) this claim was sustained.
Exhibit 21


        SUBSIDIARIES OF INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION


     The following is a list of the Company's subsidiaries as of March 
1, 1999, except for unnamed subsidiaries which, considered in the 
aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant 
subsidiary.

                                               Jurisdiction
                                                    of
Name of Subsidiary                             Incorporation
------------------                             -------------

Damca International Corporation                   Delaware
  Inversiones MONACA, C.A.                        Venezuela
    AGROMONACA, C.A.                              Venezuela
    Molinos Nacionales, C.A. (MONACA)             Venezuela
  Robin Hood Multifoods Inc.                      Ontario
    Multifoods Inc.                               Ontario
    Gourmet Baker Inc.                            Ontario
    980964 Ontario Limited                        Ontario
Fantasia Confections, Inc.                        California
Multifoods Bakery Distributors, Inc.              Delaware
Multifoods Distribution Management, Inc.          Delaware
  Multifoods Distribution Group, Inc.             Colorado
    Multifoods Merchandising, Inc.                Delaware
No. 62565.

#### Ardalt, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 320031-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 57700.

#### Wah Chang Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 204083-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
November 1, 1951

No. 55970.

protest 160722-K/2895.

#### J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
No. 61866.

#### Bunge Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 310200-K (A) (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

Following *The Best Foods, Inc.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 1, C. D. 1791), the motion was granted.
No. 52998.

#### Park & Tilford Import Corp. and Saccone & Speed (USA), Ltd. *v.*United States,

protests 133825-K and 140854-K (New York),

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
No. 49170.

#### Protests 996140-G, etc., of Knickerbocker Mills Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 162

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v. Naike Doglod, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20220035

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable David E. Reich , Judge.

AFFIRMED

.

Per Curiam

.

Julie A. Lawyer, State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND

, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Laura C. Ringsak, Bismarck, ND , for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.1 State v. Doglod No. 20220035

Per Curiam

. [¶1] Naike Doglod appeals a criminal judgment entered after a jury found her guilty of terrorizing and criminal trespass. She argues the evidence was
insufficient to sustain her conviction s

. After reviewing the record, sufficient
evidence supports Doglod’s terr orizing and criminal trespass convictions. See
State v. Johnson , 2021 ND 161, ¶ 14, 964 N.W.2d 500 (“We have reviewed the evidence in a light favorable to the verdict, considered the reasonable inferences the jury could draw from the evidence, and conclude substantial evidence was presented to the jury to warrant a conviction.”). We summarily
affirm un der N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a) (3).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Internet Security Systems,
Inc. (the "Corporation") for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board
of the Corporation, certifies 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
Corporation.


/s/ THOMAS E. NOONAN
------------------------------
Thomas E. Noonan
Chief Executive Officer, President and
  Chairman of the Board
August 13, 2002
Exhibit 21.1

Kinder Morgan, Inc.Subsidiaries of the Registrant
Kinder Morgan (Delaware), Inc. - DE      Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. - DE      KMGP Services Company, Inc. - DE      Kinder Morgan Management, LLC - DE      Kinder Morgan Services LLC - DE      KN Cogeneration, Inc. - CO      Thermo Project Management, Inc. - CO      Valley Operating, Inc. - CO      KN Thermo, L.L.C. - CO      Cogeneration Holdings LLC - DE      Cogeneration LLC - DE      Kinder Morgan Ft. Lupton Operator LLC - DE      Thermo Greeley, LLC - CO      KN Telecommunications, Inc. - CO      KN Gas Supply Services, Inc. - CO      KN Natural Gas, Inc. - CO      Red Rock Energy, LLC - DE      Interenergy Corporation - CO      Kinder Morgan Power Company - CO      KN TransColorado, Inc. - CO      KN Wattenberg Transmission Limited Liability Company - CO      Kinder Morgan Retail Energy Services Company - CO      Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company - CO      Kinder Morgan Foundation (nonprofit) - CO      KN Gas Gathering, Inc. - CO      MidCon Corp. - DE      Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America - DE      NGPL Canyon Compression Co. - DE      Canyon Creek Compression Company - IL      KN Energy International, Inc. - DE      KM International Services, Inc. - DE      FR Holdings L.L.C. - CO      Kinder Morgan Michigan, LLC - DE      Kinder Morgan Illinois, LLC - DE      Kinder Morgan Missouri, LLC - DE      Kinder Morgan Power Partners, LLC - DE      Kinder Morgan Michigan Pipeline LLC - DE      Kinder Morgan Oklahoma LLC - DE      KM Turbine Facility #6 LLC - DE      KM Turbine Facility #7 LLC - DE      Kinder Morgan Operator LLC - DE      Kinder Morgan Michigan Operator LLC - DE      Kinder Morgan Michigan Servicer LLC - DE      Kinder Morgan Michigan Contractor LLC - DE      Kinder Morgan Michigan Developer LLC - DE      Triton Power Company LLC - DE      Triton Power Michigan LLC - DE      KMC Thermo, L.L.C. - CO      Wildhorse Energy, LLC - DE      Administracion y Operacion de Infraestructura, S.A. de C.V. - Mexico      GNN Servicios, S. de R.L. de C.V. - Mexico      Gas Natural del Noroeste, S.A. de C.V. - Mexico      KN Thermo Acquisition, Inc. - CO      Kinder Morgan TransColorado LLC - DE      Kinder Morgan TransColorado, Inc. - UT****
EXHIBIT 21


                     Subsidiaries of the Company


    As of March 23, 1997, the Company owned or controlled the following
percentages of the capital stock of the corporations listed below:


                                 State or Country of
    Name of Corporation                 Incorporation         % Owned


Kollmorgen Overseas Development
    Corporation                      Delaware           100

Proto-Power Corporation                  Delaware           100

Kollmorgen Tandon (India)                India               51

Tianjin Kollmorgen Industrial            Peoples' Republic
    Drives Corporation                        of China           63

Artus Group                          France             100
    Kollmorgen Artus
    Societe Anonyme Cryla
CIV. S-04-2418 DAD 1

THOMAS N. STEWART, III - #88128

ATTORNEY AT LAW

369 BLUE OAK LANE, 2nd FLOOR

CLAYTON, CA 94517

TELEPHONE (925) 672-8452

TELEFAX (925) 673-1729

Attorneys for Lenard Scott

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LENARD SCOTT, Case No. CIV. S-04-2418 DAD

Plaintiff, STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL; ORDER

v.

ROSE MARIA VIVIER,

 

Defendants.

__________________________________/ 

The parties hereto stipulate as follows:

The parties have reached a full and final settlement of all issues in this action. A

Settlement Agreement between the parties has been fully executed. 

Some parts of the Settlement Agreement are to be performed in the future. The parties

shall comply with their Settlement Agreement, a copy of which is incorporated by reference as

Case 2:04-cv-02418-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/22/05 Page 1 of 2
CIV. S-04-2418 DAD 2

if fully set forth. The parties request the Court to retain jurisdiction for two and one-half year(s)

from the date hereof in order to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement under the

authority of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. Of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381-82

(1994).

Although the parties are hereby dismissing this action with prejudice, they agree that the

Court will retain jurisdiction over this action and the parties hereto in order to be able to

enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through their

designated counsel that this action be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to FRCP

41(a)(2), and the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement for

two and one-half year(s) after the date hereof.

Date: May 16, 2005 Date: June 20, 2005

_S/ Lotte Colbert__________ __S/Thomas N. Stewart, III_________

Lotte Colbert, Thomas N. Stewart, III, 

Attorney for Defendants Attorney for Plaintiff

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: June 21, 2005.

Ddad1/orders/consent/scott2418.stipdism

Case 2:04-cv-02418-DAD Document 12 Filed 06/22/05 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2533

ELDER DEFORRORRORA LOCUST,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

W. BILLY SMITH, Sheriff,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (CA-95-38-BO)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elder Deforrorrora Locust, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Allen Davis,

WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Locust v. Smith, No. CA-95-38-BO (E.D.N.C. July 20, 1995).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED