alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE STATE, use of ROBINSON, *vs.*BENJ. BURTON and seven others.

The sheriff is entitled to a levying fee against each of several defendants in an execution.

He is not entitled to an advertising fee, though the advertisement be omitted at the defendant’s request.

Alias fi. fa., debt. Real debt $928 39; interest from the 19th of October, 1846. Returned “ Levied on goods as per inventory and appraisement, and' settled to sheriff.”

Costs:—Levying on eight defendants $32; appraisers $4; advertising $4 80; dollarage 974 58—$29 23; total $70 03.

The defendants filed an affidavit that the execution had been settled within thirty days after the levy and notice, and obtained a rule for taxing the costs; objecting to the separate levying charges, the advertising fee (as there had been.no advertisement,) and the charge of dollarage.

*The Court*

said that prior to the act of 1826, it had been decided that where the sheriff omitted a levy, or stayed an advertisement, at the request of the defendant, as it was for his benefit, he should not be allowed to object to the sheriff’s fee for the service which he had thus prevented. But the act of 1826 prohibits the allowance of a fee for any service before it is performed; and as there had not been tn fact any advertisement, the court disallowed that charge. They allowed the several levying fee, and the dollarage, it appearing that the thirty days had expired before actual payment.
# C_2020371EN.01002301.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/23

---

Action brought on 8 September 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita)

(Case T-561/20)

(2020/C 371/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, and P. Ruess, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vieta Audio, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Vita — European Union trade mark No 9 993 361

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2020 in Case R 425/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 32
                    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 Amended QuarterlyRreport of Gold Standard, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the period ending April 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), We, Scott L. Smith, President and director and Bret C.
Decker, Secretary of our Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

Dated: 6/22/2004                         /s/Scott L. Smith
      --------------                     ---------------------------
                                         Scott L. Smith
                                         President and director


Dated: 6/22/2004                         /s/Bret C. Decker
      --------------                     ---------------------------
                                         Bret C. Decker
                                         Secretary and director
April17, 2012

Mr. Dennis J. DeVany, Chief EAS & Domestic Analysis Division Office ofAviationAnalysis US Department orTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 176 Airport Circle • Room 115 Beaver, WV 25813-9475 Phone 304.255.0476 • Fax 304.253.2095

I r"-'

RE: Essential Air Service Docket OST-1997-2761
Dear MrDeVany:
Reference to the Essential Air Service Docket OST-1997-2761, final commentperiod, the Raleigh County Memorial Airport Authority (BKW) has unanimously chosenthe proposal offered by SilverAirways, with 26 weekly frequencies ortwo weekday roundtrips one ofwhich would operate ona (one) one-stop basis, and one non stop. With approval, three total week-end operations under a code share with United Airlines, service to Washington DC Dulles Airport (lAD). The service will utilize a Saab-340 thirty-four passenger cabin class aircraft.
With approval bythe Department we would appreciate the option, ofmoving the proposed additional week-end flights into the weekly frequency to accommodate the**demand,\V~~Q!!~cessru:y** in support ofthe N(l!ional Boy Scout Sununit operations, Military Induction Center and the PGA GolfTournament at no additional subsidy funding.
The Silver Airways proposal being the only RFP received, and thatproposal being contingent upon an agreement with United Airlines as a code share, (and should that fail), requests your consideration ofa link with the Greenbrier Valley Airport, Lewisburg, WV (LWB) service to Atlanta, GA (ATL). This alternate connection would serve our comm.unity and ourmissionofsupport to the entities mentioned above.
As a rural community and Airport Authority we are appreciative ofthe EASprogram and what it means to our economic future, we continue to capture themarket in this area and in southern West Virginia.

### Ithank you and Kevin Schlemmer for the support you offer, please give me a call ifI can assist you and your staff. Sincerely

# ~C~L- Tom Cochran Airport Manager
Exhibit 15 — Letter Re: Unaudited Interim Financial InformationTo the Shareholders and Board of Directors of Goodrich CorporationWe are aware of the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements and intheir related Prospectuses, of our report dated May 1, 2006 relating to the unaudited condensedconsolidated interim financial statements of Goodrich Corporation that are included in its Form10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006:     **Registration**    **Number** **Description of Registration Statement** **Filing Date**33-49052 The B.F.Goodrich Company Key Employees’ Stock Option Plan — Form S-8 June 26, 1992     333-03293 The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan — Form S-8 May 8, 1996     333-19697 The B.F.Goodrich Company Savings Benefit Restoration Plan — Form S-8 January 13, 1997     333-53879 Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan — Form S-8 May 29, 1998     333-53881 Rohr, Inc. 1982 Stock Option Plan, Rohr, Inc. 1989 Stock IncentivePlan and Rohr, Inc. 1995 Stock Incentive Plan — Form S-8 May 29, 1998     333-76297 Coltec Industries Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan and Coltec IndustriesInc. 1994 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors — Form S-8 April 14, 1999     333-77023 The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan and Goodrich Corporation2001 Equity Compensation Plan — Form S-8 April 26, 1999     333-60210 Goodrich Corporation Stock Option Plan — Form S-8 May 4, 2001     333-60208 Goodrich Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan — Form S-8 May 4, 2001     333-98165 Shelf Registration for Debt Securities, Series Preferred Stock,Common Stock, Stock Purchase Contracts and Stock Purchase Units —Form S-3 August 15, 2002     333-107866 Goodrich Corporation Employees’ Savings Plan — Form S-8 August 12, 2003     333-107867 Goodrich Corporation Wage Employees’ Savings Plan — Form S-8 August 12, 2003     333-107868 Goodrich Corporation Savings Plan for Rohr Employees — Form S-8 August 12, 2003     333-109247 Goodrich Corporation Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan — Form S-8 September 29, 2003     333-123721 Goodrich Corporation Outside Director Deferral Plan — Form S-8 March 31, 2005     333-124244 Goodrich Corporation 2001 Equity Compensation Plan — Form S-8 April 22, 2005                               /s/ Ernst & Young LLPCharlotte, North Carolina
#### KNOX *v.*WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION

[App. No. 29,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided November 19, 1962.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Horney and SybERT, JJ.

Per Curiam.

Judge Anderson’s opinion in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County fully covers the points raised by the petition filed herein under the Post Conviction Procedure Act. He thoroughly considered the facts and found against the applicant thereon with regard to the only contention now urged as a ground for granting leave to appeal. On the basis of his opinion, the application for leave to appeal is denied.

*Application denied.*
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 968

To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act with

respect to the authorization for appropriations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 18, 1993

Mr. DE LA GARZA (for himself, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. STENHOLM, and Mr.

SMITH of Oregon) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act with respect to the authorization for

appropriations.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 Section 31 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

4 Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136y) is amended to read as

5 follows:

6 ‘‘SEC. 31. AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATION.

7 ‘‘There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out

8 this Act (other than section 23(a))—

9 ‘‘(1) $130,000,000 for fiscal year 1994;
2

HR 968 IH

1 ‘‘(2) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 1995;

2 ‘‘(3) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1996; and

3 ‘‘(4) $160,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT
10.2


 


Wells
Fargo Bank,
N.A.


Technology
Banking
Group


 





 


January
15, 2021


 


Qumu
Corporation


Qumu,
Inc.


400
S. 4th Street, Suite 401-412


Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55415


Attention:
Dave Ristow


 


	Re:	Loan from Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. (the “Lender”) QUMU Corporation, a Minnesota corporation and QUMU, Inc., a California
    corporation (individually and collectively, the “Borrower”)


 


Dear
Dave:


 


Pursuant
to that certain Loan and Security Agreement by and among the Lender and the Borrower, dated January 15, 2021 (as the same may
be amended, supplemented, modified, increased, renewed or restated from time to time, the “Loan Agreement”),
Lender has entered into a certain loan facility with Borrower. All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall
have the same meanings herein as in the Loan Agreement.


 


When
signed by the Borrower and the Lender, this letter agreement will confirm that the Lender and the Borrower have agreed for fiscal
years 2021 and 2022 to the Recurring Revenue Covenant in Section 6.8 of the Loan Agreement as set forth on Exhibit A attached
hereto.


 


This
letter agreement is a Loan Document and will be governed by the laws of the State of New York. The terms and provisions set forth
in this letter agreement shall modify and supersede all inconsistent terms and provisions of the Loan Agreement and shall not
be deemed to be a consent to the modification or waiver of any other term or condition of the Loan Agreement.


 


This
letter agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which taken
together shall be one and the same instrument. Receipt by facsimile or other electronic transmission of any executed signature
page to this letter agreement shall constitute effective delivery of such signature page.


 




    	 	 	 



    	 	 	 



    

 


Please
execute this letter agreement in the space below to evidence your agreement to its terms. Thank you.


 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 	WELLS
    FARGO BANK, N.A.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Alexander Hoppe
	 	Name:	Alexander Hoppe
	 	Title:	Relationship Manager


 


Acknowledged
and Agreed:


 


	QUMU
    CORPORATION	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ TJ Kennedy	 
	Name:	TJ Kennedy	 
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer & President	 
	 	 	 
	QUMU,
    INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ TJ Kennedy	 
	Name:	TJ Kennedy	 
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer & President	 


 




    	 	 	 



    	 	 	 



    

 


EXHIBIT
A


 


Borrower’s
Recurring Revenue for Fiscal Years 2021 and 2022 shall be at least the following amounts at the following times:


 


	Trailing Three-Month Period Ending	 	Recurring Revenue 
	March 31, 2021	 	$5,000,000
	June 30, 2021	 	$5,000,000
	September 30, 2021	 	$6,000,000
	December 31, 2021	 	$8,000,000
	March 31, 2022	 	$8,000,000
	June 30, 2022	 	$8,000,000
	September 30, 2022	 	$8,000,000
	December 31, 2022	 	$8,000,000


 


Initials
of each party:


 


	Qumu Corporation 	TK	 	Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 	AH
	 	 	 	 	 
	Qumu, Inc.	TK
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John D. WHITNEY, Appellee. STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Deborah J. GRAVES, Appellee.

Nos. 72-978 to 72-981.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 20, 1973.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

Loyd C. Mosley, Clearwater, for appel-lee Whitney.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Benefield v. State, Fla., 160 So.2d 706 and Earman v. State, Fla., 265 So.2d 695.

LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur. •
#### Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Appellee, *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Appellant, and The Pittsburg *&*Shawmut Railroad Co., Intervening Appellee.

*166Argued February 5, 1975,

before President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Judge Wilkinson, Jr., did not participate.

*Louis G. Cocheres,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *Herbert G. Zahn,*Assistant Attorney General, and *Robert W. Cunliffe,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellant.

*R. Knickerbocker Smith, Jr.,*Assistant Counsel, with him *Edward Munce,*Acting Counsel, for appellee.

*Thomas D. Stauffer,*for intervening appellee.

*167March 26, 1975:

Opinion by

Judge Mencer,

This is an appeal from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) allocating the costs of the repair and restoration of the bridge structure carrying State Highway Route 66 over and above the tracks of the Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad Company in Mahoning Township, Armstrong County, and directing the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Department) to perform maintenance on the crossing and approaches thereto in the future.

The history of the events leading to this appeal is contained in our prior opinion of *Department of Transportation v. P.U.C.,*3 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 405, 283 A. 2d 313 (1971), in which we affirmed what we termed a “preliminary” order of the Commission. There then followed a hearing and thereafter a Commission order dated September 19, 1972, directing the Department to prepare a complete plan for the reconstruction of the crossing. The Department then complied with this order, a final hearing was conducted, and the Commission issued an order dated March 11, 1974, which is the subject of this appeal. After a petition for modification of this order had been denied by the Commission, the Department appealed to us.

Unfortunately, we are compelled to remand this case for the reasons enumerated in *Pennsylvania Department of Transportation v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission,*Pa. Commonwealth Ct. , A. 2d (No. 1113 C. D. 1974, filed March 26, 1975). In that case we found, as we find here, that the lack of detailed findings in support of the Commission’s conclusions1 makes it impossible for us to determine the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, we must remand. *See Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission,*12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 5, 315 A. 2d 889 (1974).

*168We, therefore, issue the following

Order

And Now, this 26th day of March, 1975, the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission is vacated and this matter is remanded to the Commission for the sole purpose of preparing, executing and entering a new order within sixty (60). days of the date hereof, setting forth the specific findings of fact upon which it based the conclusions in paragraphs 6, 14, 21, 22 and 25 of its order dated March 5, 1974.

1

. In the instant case the conclusions challenged are set forth in paragraphs 6, 14, 21, 22 and 25 of the Public Utility Commission’s order in question.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Boardof Directors 

Coinstar, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-30985, 333-89975, 333-63108, 333-98297, 333-100870, 333-120547, 333-127293, 333-147087 and 333-161134) on Form S-8 andregistration statements (Nos. 333-123326, 333-130000, 333-155691, 333-157552, 333-157553, and 333-161523) on Form S-3 of Coinstar, Inc. of our reports dated February 22, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Coinstar, Inc. as ofDecember 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009 , and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which reports appear in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Coinstar, Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Seattle, Washington 

February 22, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 487 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 487

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 21, 1994.
    Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 1030) entitled the ``Veterans 
Health Programs Improvement Act of 1994'', in the opinion of this House, 
contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of the first article of the 
Constitution of the United States and is an infringement of the privileges of 
this House and that such bill be respectfully returned to the Senate with a 
message communicating this resolution.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 442 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 442

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 25, 1994.
    Resolved, That Representative Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma be and is hereby 
elected to the following standing committees of the House of Representatives: 
the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Government Operations.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
TS-EUTM01 

Attachment #8

Pt. 2, Sec. B, End 

Worker/Occupational Exposure and Environmental Release Information on the 

New Chemical Substance at Industrial Sites Controlled by Others
From: Laura K. McAfee [mailto:LMcAfee@bdlaw.com]

Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:38 PM To: French, Chuck Cc: John Konrady; SMcCutchan@fpiwv.com; Fruh, Steve; Chin, Conrad; Boyd, Rochelle; Boswell, Colin; Johnson, Steffan; Dewees, Jason; tshillier@gmail.com; r.powell@optimaacq.com Subject: RE: Upcoming stack tests at Felman

Chuck

--

I apologize for the delay in getting this to you. A proposed test plan for the stack tests is attached for your review.

Scheduling: Felman has been working toward a testing schedule of March 13

- 20, in an effort to ensure that the report will be available as close to April 22 a s possible (it's my understanding that some of the analysis will take longer than normal because of the constituents/test methods involved). However, given that it is already March 4, we certainly understand if you need more time to review the test
protoc ol before we proceed. So please let me know if you would prefer us to delay the tests for another
week or two

-- a later test date will likely push the final results back past April 22, but we will of course do our best to get them as quickly as they are available. I understand from the test contractor that the lab has started to prep the sample tubes, which have a fairly short shelf life, so if you would like us to start later than the 13th, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know as soon as possible.

On the fugitive monitoring, we should have the final information we need later this week, so I would hope to have a draft protocol to you shortly thereafter

-- perhaps Friday or Monday.

Thanks, and please feel free to contact me at your convenience to d iscuss any of this

-- I am on my cell today (443/538

- 3142) and back in the office tomorrow (443/538

- 3142).

Laura

----- Original Message

----- From: French, Chuck [mailto:French.Chuck@epa.gov] Sent: Mon 3/4/2013 12:43 PM To: John Konrady; SMcCutchan@fpiwv. com Cc: Fruh, Steve; Chin, Conrad; Boyd, Rochelle; Boswell, Colin; Johnson, Steffan; Dewees, Jason; Laura K. McAfee; tshillier@gmail.com Subject: Upcoming stack tests at Felman

Hi John and Shawn,How are things coming along regarding planning the stack emissions tests? When do you plan to

conduct the tests? Could you please send us a copy of the site

- specific test plan as soon as you can? As you may recall, we asked for these in the cover letter and in enclosure #2 of the ICR (see attached). Anyway, we realize there may have been some miscommunication regarding this. Nevertheless, we would still like to see it so that we can do a quick review before you begin testing, to ensure we are all on "the same page" with this.

Also, what is the status of the draft plan for testing fugitive emissions? Do you think you'll be able to
send us that soon also?

Thanks.

Chuck

Phone: 919

- 541

- 7912
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Western Sierra Mining Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Denis Atkins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.



Dated: October 22, 2008

/s/ Dennis AtkinsDennis AtkinsChief Financial Officer



1

---