alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case Mo. 9,786.

#### MORAN et al. v. SCHNUGG et al.

[7 Ben. 399.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

Aug., 1874.

Bankruptcy — Priorities — Mortgage — Mechanic's Lien.

A mortgage recorded before the filing of a mechanic’s lien is entitled to priority. When the bankruptcy court takes possession of property on which there are mechanics’ liens, and sells it free and dear of the liens, it forecloses the liens, and the lien holders are not bound to renew or continue their liens, to preserve their rights against the proceeds of the property.

This was an action [against John Schnugg and others] brought by [James H. Moran and others] assignees in bankruptcy [of Leopold Bohm] to set aside certain mortgages and mechanics’ liens upon the bankrupt’s property, which the court had sold free and dear of both mortgages and liens. On the evidence the court held that the mortgages were valid. The question remained as to the mechanics’ liens and their priority.

Abbott Bros., for plaintiffs.

Boardman & Boardman, W. B. Putney, L. B. Bunnell, and Otto Meyer, for defendants.

1

 [Reported by Robert D. Benedict Esq., and B. Lincoln Benedict, Esq., and here reprinted by permission.]

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

As between the mortgages and the mechanics’ liens, the former are not only valid, but are prior in time. The former were recorded before any of the latter were filed. This gives priority to the former.,

The mortgages must, therefore, be decreed to have validity and precedence, both as regards the mechanics’ liens and the assignees in bankruptcy, the Schnugg mortgage for the full ?10.000, and the Baerlein mortgage for $6,800.

As between the mechanics’ liens and the assignees in bankruptcy, I think the liens are not open to any of the objections urged against them by the plaintiffs.

The bankruptcy court, within the year from the filing of the liens, took possession of the property, and sold it free and clear of the mechanics’ liens, and put the proceeds of sale into the hands of its officers, in place of the estate so disposed of. It did this by virtue of the provisions of the 20th section of the act [of 1867 (14 Stat 526)]. It thereby foreclosed the liens. It converted into money, the property that was~subject to the liens, and thereby prevented the lienors from .ever taking measures to foreclose the liens. The lienors were not only relieved thereby from any duty to renew or continue their liens within the year, but they had no right to renew or continue a lien against property which the bankruptcy court had sold free from such lien.

As regards renewing or continuing the lien, so as to make it continue operative against the proceeds of the sale, it is sufficient to say, that at least from the commencement of this suit, which was within the year, the rights of the lienors were fixed, and whatever their rights as lienors were when this suit was brought, such they must be adjudged in this suit to be. As between the plaintiffs and the lienors, the fund must be administered and distributed as of the time when the plaintiffs came into this court and asked this court to administer and distribute it
Before the Second Division,

October 27, 1948

No. 52642.

protests 126568-K, etc. (NewYork).

#### Thos. Nelson & Sons, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The uneontradieted evidence establishing that the electrotype plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Oxford University Press, N. Y., Inc.*v. *United States*(20 Cust. Ct. 78, C. D. 1088), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV INC., 

 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2407 GEB GGH

vs. 

GLEN BOWEN, ORDER

 Defendant. 

___________________________/

This matter, presently scheduled for plaintiff’s motion for default judgment

against defendant Bowen, is vacated from the calendar for July 21, 2005, and will be taken under

submission on the papers.

DATED: 7/11/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

direct2407.sbm.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-02407-GEB-GGH Document 16 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas E. Mills, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AMP Productions,
Ltd.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.     I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)     evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)     presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5.     I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)     all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

6.     I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

August 4, 2007



By   /s/ Thomas Mills
     Thomas E. Mills
     President & Chief Financial Officer
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

LUIS DOMINGUEZ-CRUZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1903 MCE DAD P

vs.

ROACH, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s First Set Of Interrogatories To

Defendants.” Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary for discovery requests

and that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that party's responses should

be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the

court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties

shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 1, 2006 First Set of

Interrogatories To Defendants will be placed in the court file and disregarded. Plaintiff is

cautioned that further filing of discovery requests or responses, except as required by rule of

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01903-MCE -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/11/06 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

court, may result in an order of sanctions, including, but not limited to, a recommendation that

this action be dismissed. 

DATED: May 10, 2006.

DAD:4

domin1903.411

Case 2:04-cv-01903-MCE -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 2
(V.D. 119)

#### Overseas Finance & Trading Co. W. J. Byrnes & Co. v. United States

Entry No. 4141.

(Decided May 10, 1962)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*WilUam H. OrricJc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oitver, Chief Judge:

The merchandise involved herein consists of certain binoculars and cases.

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *Overseas Finance & Trading Co. et al.*v. *United*States, 45 Cust. Ct. 342, Abstract 64782. The conclusion therein, and the judgment issued pursuant thereto, were to the effect that the protest had been prematurely filed and the matter was remanded to a single judge in reappraisement to determine the proper dutiable values in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d)).

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for the binoculars is $7.80 and for the cases is 70 cents.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

| (1)   | the                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                  15(d) of                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | the                  information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material                  respects the financial condition and results of operations of the                  Company. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Steven Ludwig                                               |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Steven                Ludwig                                                        |
| Title: | Chief                Executive Officer (Principal Executive                Officer) |
| Date:  | August                19, 2008                                                      |
|   |                                                                                |
| By:    | /s/                Sariah Hopkins                                              |
| Name:  | Sariah                Hopkins                                                       |
| Title: | Chief                Financial Officer (Principal Financial                Officer) |
| Date:  | August                19, 2008                                                      |

----
Opinion issued May 7 , 20 2 4

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 2 4
- 00 133
- CV

——————————— JOSEPH NANCE , Appella nt

V. ATIKA ABDURRAHIM , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 246th District Court

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 201 5
- 11750

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Joseph Nance ha s neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5, 20.1; see also T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041; Order, Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial2

Panel on Multi

- District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 1 5

- 91 58 (Tex. Aug. 28 , 201 5)

. After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5, 42.3(c).
We therefore dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees. T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 42.3(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot

. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris

.
Exhibit 10.20.1

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS, INC.    FIRST AMENDMENT TO  EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTDAVID CLARK

ThisFIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT(this "First
Amendment") is entered into effective as of March 2, 2011, by and betweenALLOS THERAPEUTICS, INC.(the
"Company") andDAVID CLARK("Employee") (collectively,
the "Parties").

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, the Parties entered into an Employment Agreement on June 25, 2009 (the
"Employment Agreement");

WHEREAS, modifications are needed to bring the Employment Agreement into compliance with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, mutual covenants, the above recitals, and the agreements herein set forth, and for other
good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Employee hereby agree as follows:







1

---





[Signature Page Follows]

2

---



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have each duly executed thisFIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENTeffective as of the date and year first written above.

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS, INC.By:

/s/ Paul L. BernsName:

Paul L. BernsTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerEMPLOYEE:/s/ David Clark DAVID CLARK


Signature Page to First Amendment to
Employment Agreement

3

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                    INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON SCHEDULE

The Board of Directors
Witness Systems, Inc.:

Under date of January 25, 2002, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets
of Witness Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2001, as contained in the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2001. In connection with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated
financial statements, we also audited the related consolidated financial
statement schedule as listed in the index under Item 14(a)2 in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this
financial statement schedule based on our audits.

In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation
to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly,
in all material respects, the information set forth therein.



                                                              /s/ KPMG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
January 25, 2002
No. 54683.

#### The Allan Co. *v.*United States,

protest 124873-K/836 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the-merchandise is similar in all material respects to the miniature leather gloves the-subject of *United States*v. *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 32, C. A. D. 415), the claim of plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ALLAN PETERSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2345 FCD GGH P

vs.

A. TEDFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested that this action be

dismissed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants notify this court, within

ten days, whether they have any objection to the dismissal of this action. Should defendants fail

to respond, plaintiff's request will be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

DATED: 5/10/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

pete2345.59a

Case 2:04-cv-02345-FCD-GGH Document 36 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 51712.

#### Protests 11879-K, etc., of P. & S. Plum, Ltd. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *S. A. Haram*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 37, C. D. 1016). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANSWAR EL MUHAMMAD, aka CHEVAL

WRIGHT,

Petitioner,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, Director, California

Department of Corrections; S. ORNASKI, Warden,

Respondents.

CIV S-04-1856 RRB JFM

ORDER

 Good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that:

1. Respondents’ April 17, 2006 request for an enlargement of time is granted;

2. Respondents’ responsive pleading to Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

be filed on or before May 19, 2006; and

3. It is further ordered that Petitioner’s traverse be filed on or before June 19, 2006.

Dated: April 20, 2006.

/muha1856.ext

Case 2:04-cv-01856-JAM-JFM Document 24 Filed 04/21/06 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION** 
I, Matthew Fitzgerald, certify that:
1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Grant Prideco, Inc.; 
2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 
3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 
4.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; 
(b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 
(c)    disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 
5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 
(a)    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the 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 who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.      Date:  September 30, 2004                               Signature:     /s/    Matthew D. Fitzgerald            Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4047]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5714]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; 
Determinations: ``The World of 1607''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``The World of 1607'', imported from abroad 
for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at the Jamestown Settlement, 
Williamsburg, Virginia, from on or about April 10, 2007, until on or 
about July 20, 2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these 
Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, 
SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: February 28, 2007.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E7-4047 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
August 3, 2015

Mr. Stanley Jessen

North Georgia Drones, LLC

1760 Loblolly Lane

Cumming, GA 30041

Dear Mr. Jessen:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 4, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1740), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure