alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 6,749.

#### HOW et al. v. McKINNEY et al.

[1 McLean, 319.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Indiana.

May Term, 1838.

Pleading — Variance.

1. If there be a variance between the writ and declaration, advantage cannot be taken of it by motion, but the variance must be pleaded, in abatement or set out by a special demurrer.

2. Oyer of the writ must be prayed, and as oyer of the writ is now refused in England under a rule of court, the variance between the writ and the declaration is not pleadable there.

[Cited in Evans v. Morton, 2 Ind. 245.]

In this case, a motion was made by Mr. Pettit, who appeared for the defendants, to quash the writ on the following grounds: (1) Because the declaration varies from .the writ. (2) Because the writ is in case, and the endorsement on it is special, on a promissory note and bail required. (3) The writ is too general, being simply trespass on the case.

BY THE COURT.

The second and third objections to the writ are not sustainable. The writ is in the usual form and is good. And, as to the objection of variance between the writ and the declaration, that should be taken advantage of by plea in abatement or a special demurrer. A practice, it is said, has been adopted in one of the judicial circuits of this state, to take advantage of any variance between the writ and declaration, by a motion in this form. And it is insisted that this is in conformity with the English practice. It is true that a plea in abatement or demurrer for this variance is not now filed, as formerly in England; and the reason is, because, under a rule of court, oyer of the writ is refused; and without craving oyer, this matter cannot be pleaded. 2 Wils. 394, 395; 1 Bos. & P. 646, 647; 3 Bos. & P. 395; 7 East, 383. Nor will the court set aside the proceeding in respect of the variance. 2 Wils. 393; 3 East, 167. But this practice has not been adopted by the courts of the United States, nor does it appear that any decision of the supreme court of this state has sanctioned the practice of the circuit referred to. In the ease of Duval v. Craig, 2 Wheat. [15 U. S.] 45, the supreme court held that variances between the writ and the declaration, are matters pleadable in abatement only, and cannot be taken advantage of,' upon general demurrer to the declaration. And also in the case of Chirac v. Reinecker, 11 Wheat. [24 U. S.] 280. the court say variances between the writ and declaration, are in general, matters proper for pleas in abatement, and if in any case such variances can be taken advantage of by defendant, it is an established rule, that it can only be done upon oyer of the writ, granted in some proper stage of the cause.

The motion to quash is overruled.
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

TIMOTHY JACKSON SEELEY,

Plaintiff, No. 2:04-cv-01800 DFL CMK (PC)

vs.

THERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On June 14, 2005, plaintiff filed a “motion for leave for extension of time.” That

document was not served on defendants. Plaintiff is advised that every document submitted to

the court for consideration must be served on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Documents not to

be served electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the U.S. mail. If an attorney has

filed a document with the court on behalf of any defendants, then documents submitted by

plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not on the defendants. Every document submitted

conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se) must include a certificate

stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to defendants or their attorney and

the address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 14, 2005 “motion

for leave for extension of time” is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 42 Filed 06/24/05 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

properly serve any documents subsequently filed in this action, and failure to include a proper

certificate of service with such filing, may result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

DATED: June 22, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/kf

seel1800.35 

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 42 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

December 24, 1942

No. 47843.

#### Protests 25755-K, etc., of W. R. Zanes & Co. (Galveston).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following *United States*v. *Schapiro*(24 C. C. P. A. 343, T. D. 48771) and *Hagy Waste Works*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 385, C. D. 162), certain of the rags in question were held entitled to free entry as paper stock under paragraph 1750, in accordance with the percentages as set forth in the stipulation entered into between counsel.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STOCKTON EXECUTIVE LIMOUSINE

CHARTER SERVICES, INC.,

NO. CIV. S-04-1999 LKK/PAN

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

By order filed December 16, 2004, a Pretrial Conference in the

above-captioned case was set for May 15, 2006. That order further

provided that, in addition to their separate pretrial statements,

the parties shall file a joint pretrial statement setting forth a

list of the disputed and undisputed facts. On May 1, 2006,

defendant UP filed a statement of disputed and undisputed facts

which was unsigned by counsel for plaintiff. In a declaration

filed concurrently therewith, counsel explains that the joint

statement was filed without plaintiff’s counsel’s signature when

Case 2:04-cv-01999-LKK -EFB Document 79 Filed 05/03/06 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

neither fax nor phone calls to counsel received any response. On

May 1, 2006, the court attempted to contact plaintiff’s counsel to

inquire regarding the joint statement and, likewise, was not

favored with a return phone call.

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that:

1. The Pretrial Conference currently set for May 15, 2006 is

CONTINUED to May 30, 2006 at 3:00 p.m. in Chambers;

2. Counsel shall file a joint statement of disputed and

undisputed facts not later than May 8, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.; and

3. Counsel for plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in

writing within ten (10) days why she should not be sanctioned in

the amount of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) for her failure

to comply with this court’s Status Order to confer in filing a

joint pretrial statement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01999-LKK -EFB Document 79 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2
cogt-ex102_32.htm



Exhibit 10.2

 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

This Second Amendment to Employment Agreement (the "Amendment") is made as of the 4th day of October, 2016 by and between Cogint, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Company"), and Daniel MacLachlan ("Employee"). Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement (defined below).

 

WHEREAS, The Best One, Inc., a Florida corporation ("Best One"), and Employee entered into that certain Employment Agreement made by and between Best One and Employee, dated October 6, 2014, as amended by that certain Amendment to Employment Agreement made by and between Best One and Employee, dated March 17, 2015 (as amended, the "Employment Agreement").

 

WHEREAS, the Employment Agreement was assumed by Company pursuant to certain transactions involving Best One.

 

WHEREAS, Company and Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement in accordance with the terms and provisions hereof.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, Company and Employee hereby adopt this Amendment effective as of the date hereof.

 


	
 
	
1.
	
Paragraph 6 to Exhibit A to the Agreement ("Exhibit A") is deleted in its entirety and the following substituted in lieu thereof:




 

"Term: Commencing on the Effective Date and ending September 30, 2017; provided, that, upon September 30, 2017, this Agreement shall automatically renew for successive one (1) year terms, unless either party provides written notice to the other no less than thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of each such renewal setting forth a desire to terminate this Agreement."

 


	
 
	
2.
	
Except as specifically amended hereby, all terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




 

[Signatures on following page.]






 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.

 

COMPANY:

 

Cogint, Inc., a Delaware corporation

 

By: /s/ Derek Dubner

       Derek Dubner

 

 

EMPLOYEE:

 

By: /s/ Daniel MacLachlan

       Daniel MacLachlan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Signature Page to Second Amendment to Employment Agreement]
ceru-ex101_356.htm



EXHIBIT 10.1



 

 

November 1, 2016

 

Gregg Beloff, Principal

Danforth Advisors, LLC

91 Middle Road

Southborough, MA 01772

 

Dear Gregg:

 

This  letter  is  in  reference  to  the  Consulting  Agreement  between  Cerulean  Pharma  Inc. ("Cerulean") and Danforth Advisors, LLC dated May 27, 2015 (as amended, the “Agreement”).   Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning given such terms in the Agreement.

 

In accordance with recent discussions, and consistent with the nonqualified stock option granted to you individually on August 22, 2016, this letter is to document our agreement to further extend the term of the Agreement through August 30, 2018.  All other terms of your agreement remain unchanged, and in full force and effect.

 

If you agree to this extension, please sign below where your name appears and return one fully executed copy to me.  

 

 


			
	
 
	
 
	
Very truly yours,

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
CERULEAN PHARMA INC

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
By:  /s/ Alejandra Carvajal

	
 
	
 
	
          Alejandra Carvajal

	
 
	
 
	
          Vice President, General Counsel

	
Agreed to:
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Danforth Advisors, LLC
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:  /s/ Gregg Beloff, Managing
	
 
	
 

	
          Gregg Beloff, Managing Director
	
 
	
 




 

Cerulean Pharma Inc. | 35 Gatehouse Drive I Waltham, MA 02451 1    P: 781-996-4300 1  F: 844-894-2378
No. 53542.

protests 54885-K, etc. (Rochester).

#### H. C. Cohn & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

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

RILEY NOONKESTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1571 DFL KJM P

vs.

CLAY PARKER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On October 20, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01571-DFL -KJM Document 6 Filed 12/16/05 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 20, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: 12/15/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01571-DFL -KJM Document 6 Filed 12/16/05 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 this Quarterly Report of Wild Craze, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2013, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Justin Jarman,
Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Such
    Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2013, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2013, fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date:
    May 20, 2013 | By: | /s/
    Justin Jarman          
|---------------------- | --- | -------------------------------
|                       |     | Justin
    Jarman              
|                       |     | Principal
    Executive Officer
|                       |     | Wild
    Craze, Inc.
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

ANGELO QUINTIN DOWNEY, No. CIV S-04-1725-GEB-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

K. PROSPER,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 2, 2005, the court served orders on plaintiff

at the California Correctional Center in Susanville, California. The Court’s records indicates that

these orders were returned as undeliverable because they were refused by plaintiff. On March 22,

2005, the court issued findings and recommendations that this action be dismissed pursuant to

Eastern District of California Local Rule 11-110 and 83-182(f) for lack of prosecution. On March

24, 2005, plaintiff filed a document indicating that he had been transferred to a different housing

area within the California Correctional Center. On April 14, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the

court’s March 22, 2005, findings and recommendations stating that he had not refused any legal

mail but that prison officials were not delivering his mail to his new location. The court notes

Case 2:04-cv-01725-GEB-CMK Document 12 Filed 09/28/05 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

that the address provided by plaintiff on both his recent filings matches the address of record

reflected on the court’s docket. 

Given that plaintiff filed objections to the court’s March 22, 2005, findings and

recommendations, it appears that plaintiff is now receiving his legal mail. In the interest of

justice, the court will provide plaintiff an additional opportunity to prosecute this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court’s March 22, 2005, findings and recommendations are vacated;

2. Service of plaintiff’s complaint is appropriate for defendant K. Prosper;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff one USM-285 form, one

summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed July 28, 2004;

4. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the

court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form; and

d. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed July 28, 2004;

5. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the

United States Marshal to serve the defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs.

DATED: September 26, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01725-GEB-CMK Document 12 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service 

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee (RACNAC) will meet in Washington, DC. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the status of the state specific rulemaking for inventoried roadless area management in the State of Idaho and to discuss temporary roads and other related issues. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held March 28 and March 29, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Forest Service's Yates Building at 201 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20250. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jessica Call, RACNAC Coordinator, at                         *jessicacall@fs.fed.us*                         or (202) 205-1056, USDA Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mailstop 1104, Washington, DC 20250.                     

Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public and interested parties are invited to attend; building security requires you to provide your name to the RACNAC Coordinator (contact information listed above) by March 23, 2007. You will need photo identification to enter the building. 

While meeting discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members, the public will be allowed to offer written and oral comments for the Committee's consideration. Attendees wishing to comment orally will be allotted a specific amount of time to speak during a public comment period at the end of the first day's agenda. To offer oral comment, please contact the RACNAC Coordinator at the contact number above. 

Dated: March 2, 2007. 

Gloria Manning, 

Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.

[FR Doc. E7-4143 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
# EUR-Lex - 52007BP0122(01) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007BP0122(01)

**1. European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for the implementation of the budget of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2005 (C6-0396/2006 - 2006/2163(DEC)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0238 - 0239 *

1.

European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for the implementation of the budget of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2005 (C6-0396/2006 — 2006/2163(DEC))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2005 [1],

- having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2005, together with the Foundation's replies [2],

- having regard to the Council's recommendation of 27 February 2007 (5711/2007 — C6-0080/2007),

- having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities [3], and in particular Article 185 thereof,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1360/90 of 7 May 1990 establishing a European Training Foundation [4], and in particular Article 11 thereof,

- having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 [5], and in particular Article 94 thereof,

- having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the Report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A6-0113/2007),

1. Grants the director of the European Training Foundation discharge for the implementation of the Foundation's budget for the financial year 2005;

2. Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the director of the European Training Foundation, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

[1] OJ C 266, 31.10.2006, p. 40.

[2] OJ C 312, 19.12.2006, p. 73.

[3] OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 (OJ L 390, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

[4] OJ L 131, 23.5.1990, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by regulation (EC) No 1648/2003 (OJ L 245, 29.9.2003, p. 22).

[5] OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

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