alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Wytheville

#### Penn & Others *v.*Hearon.

July 8, 1897.

Absent: Buchanan, J.*

1. Chancery Pleading—Suit *by assignor for benefit of*assignee.—The assignor of a chose in action, secured by a vendor’s lien reserved on real estate, cannot sue in equity for the benefit of his assignee to enforce the lien. The assignment carries no interest in the land. The complainant in equity must be the party owning the beneficial interest.

Appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Washington county, pronounced October 15, 1896, in a suit in chancery wherein D. S. Hearon suing for the benefit of A. S. McNeil, was the complainant, and the appellants were the defendants.

*Reversed.*

*White da*Penn, for the appellants.

*John E. Bur*son, for the appellee.

*

 Judge Buchanan had been counsel in the Circuit Court.

Cardwell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Washington county overruling a demurrer to the bill filed by the appellee, D. S. Hearon, for the benefit of A. S. McNeil, to enfore a vendor’s lien against certain real estate theretofore sold and conveyed by Hearon to the appellants. The amount claimed, $1,381.66, with interest, is evidenced by a bond executed by appellants to Hearon, May 5, 1890, payable twelve months after its date.

*774The bill alleges that Hearon had parted with his interest in the bond, having sold it to McNeil for value received, and had assigned it to him, as appears by the bond, with the assignment thereon, made an exhibit with the bill.

The sole question presented therefore is: Can an assignor of a chose in action, secured by a vendor’s lien reserved on real estate, sue in equity to enforce the lien, for the benefit of his assignee?

An assignee of a vendor’s lien is an assignee of a mere chose in action, and the assignment carries no interest in the land upon which the debt is secured. *Gordon, Assignee*v. *Rixey,*76 Va. 694.

The assignor of such a debt therefore has merely a barren legal title, while the beneficial interest is in his assignee, who must be a party to the suit. Equity deals with the real parties in interest and if they are not before the court no proper decree can be made. *Castleman*v. *Berry et als,*86 Va. 604; *Campbell*v. *Shipman,*87 Va. 655; *Grove*v. *Judy,*24 West Va. 294; *Kellam*v. *Sawyer,*30 West Va. 198; *Field*v. *Maghee,*5 Paige 539; and *Rodgers*v. *Traders Ins. Co.,*6 Paige 583 and 598.

In a note to the case of *Kane*v. *Mann,*decided by this court and reported in 2 Ya. Law Register 433, the learned and lamented editor (Judge Burks) says that it has been decided by many cases, and seems a well settled rule, that the complainant must be the party owning the beneficial equitable interest, and that he cannot sue for his benefit in the name of another who has a mere barren legal title.

The decree of the court below overruling the demurrer of the appellants to the bill filed in this cause must be reversed and annulled, and this court will enter such decree herein as that court should have entered, sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill, with costs to appellants.

*Reversed.*
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ESTEBAN CORNELIO-LEGARDA, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 20-8033 

(D.C. No. 2:07-CR-00239-SWS-1) 

(D. Wyo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This matter is before the court on the government’s Unopposed Motion to 

Remand for Further Proceedings, by which it requests that this appeal be remanded 

to the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming for further proceedings 

consistent with this court’s decisions in United States v. McGee, No. 20-5047 (10th 

Cir. Mar. 29, 2021), and United States v. Maumau, No. 20-4056 (10th Cir. Apr. 1, 

2021). 

Upon consideration, the court grants the motion, dismisses this appeal, and 

remands the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with United 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 5, 2021

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

States v. McGee, No. 20-5047 (10th Cir. Mar. 29, 2021), and United States v. 

Maumau, No. 20-4056 (10th Cir. Apr. 1, 2021), including, if appropriate, vacating 

the May 27, 2020 Order Dismissing Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrance Jones, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 594]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered June 28, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant youthful offender treatment because of his arrest and conviction of another crime, committed while awaiting sentencing on the instant conviction *(see, People v Figgins,*87 NY2d 840). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin and Mar-low, JJ.
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350
 as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, filed pursuant
to  Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, of  The First Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for the period
ended June 30,  2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, DeeDee Lowery, the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
  1)
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      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.





/s/
      DeeDee LoweryName:
                DeeDee
      LoweryTitle:
                Executive
      Vice President and ChiefFinancial
      OfficerDate:
                August
      12, 2009




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or  other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting
the  signature that appears in typed form within the electronic
version of this  written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to The First  Bancshares, Inc., and will be retained by The
First Bancshares, Inc., and  furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon  request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JENNIFER L. MACAVOY,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 645 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
**EXECUTION VERSION**

 

**EXCHANGE AGREEMENT**

**BY AND AMONG**

**SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,**

 

**WALTER V. PURNELL, JR.,**

**RAJENDRA SINGH,**

**GERALD STEVENS-KITTNER,**

**GLENN MEYERS,**

**ELIZABETH TASKER,**

**COLUMBIA ST PARTNERS III, Inc.,**

**DEAN & COMPANY,**

**INOVATE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, LLC**

**AND**

**WBS, LLC**

 

Dated as of December 10, 2008

 

----
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Axion International Holdings, Inc. (the
Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended herein as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, James Kerstein, Chief Executive
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 fully presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations or the
      Company.





Date:
      January 28, 2010
                By:
                /s/
      James KersteinJames
      KersteinChief
      Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 21.1
                                MICROGRAFX, INC.

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



Information is set forth below concerning all subsidiaries of the Company as of
June 30, 1999:

NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                         INCORPORATION              COMPANY

InterCAP Graphics Systems                  Delaware                      100%
Micrografx France, SARL                    France                        100%
Micrografx Deutschland GmBH                Germany                       100%
Micrografx Japan. K.K.                     Japan                         100%
Micrografx B.V.                            The Netherlands               100%
Micrografx Technology N.V.                 Netherlands Antilles          100%
Micrografx, Ltd.                           United Kingdom                100%
Micrografx Australia Pty. Limited          Australia                     100%
Micrografx Italia S.r.l.                   Italy                         100%
Visual Acquisition, Inc.                   Delaware                      100%
AdvanEdge Acquisition, Inc.                Delaware                      100%
WebKnight Acquisition, Inc.                Delaware                      100%
Micrografx Interactive, Inc.               Delaware                      100%



<PAGE>
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

We the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:



| | 1. | this annual report on Form 20-F of BT Group plc 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 this annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of BT Group plc.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                                
|------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 24, 2012 |  |  |  | /s/ Ian Livingston             
|                   |  |  |  | Name: Ian Livingston           
|                   |  |  |  | Title:   Chief Executive       
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 24, 2012 |  |  |  | /s/ Tony Chanmugam             
|                   |  |  |  | Name: Tony Chanmugam           
|                   |  |  |  | Title:   Group Finance Director
Document

Exhibit 10.19

AMENDMENT ONE TO THE
SUPPLY AGREEMENT
This Amendment One to the Supply Agreement (“Amendment One”) dated November 16, 2015 (the “Supply Agreement”), is entered into as of the 21st day of December 2020, by and between NeuroPace, Inc., a Delaware corporation located at 455 N. Bernardo Avenue, Mountain View, California, 94043 USA (“COMPANY”) and Micro Systems Engineering, Inc., a Delaware corporation with offices located at [***] (“MST”). COMPANY and MST may be individually referred to herein as “Party” and collectively as “Parties”.
Whereas, COMPANY and Micro Systems Technologies Management AG, a Swiss corporation, located at [***] (“MST AG”), entered into a Supply Agreement COMPANY dated November 16, 2020, and,
Whereas, MST AG has transferred it rights and obligations under the Supply Agreement to MST, and,
Whereas, COMPANY and MST wish to amend the Supply Agreement to extend the term thereof to November 16, 2021, subject to the terms of the Supply Agreement, and the additional terms of this Amendment One;
NOW, THEREFORE, MST and COMPANY, recognizing the receipt and sufficiency of the consideration herein, hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE I. TERMS OF THE SUPPLY AGREEMENT:
Except as revised or amended in this Amendment One, the terms and conditions of the Supply Agreement shall remain in effect and continue without lapse from and after the date of termination of the Supply Agreement according to its terms.
ARTICLE II. TERM
The term established in the Supply Agreement is amended by this Amendment One. This Amendment One extends the term of the Supply Agreement effective as of November 16, 2020, without lapse, until November 16, 2021, unless terminated earlier by agreement of the Parties.
ARTICLE III. REVISED SUPPLY AGREEMENT
The Parties intend and agree to enter into a revised Supply Agreement on such terms as may be agreed by the Parties. COMPANY agrees to engage in discussions during the extended term established by this Amendment One. Upon agreement on the terms of the revised Supply Agreement the Parties agree to terminate this Amendment One. If the Parties are unable to agree to the terms of a revised Supply Agreement by the end of the term described in this Amendment One, the Supply Agreement will terminate by its own terms with no further rights to either Party except as to survival provision as may be identified in the Supply Agreement.
						
	Amendment One to the Supply Agreement	Page 1 of 2









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Amendment One to the Supply Agreement effective as of the Effective Date.
															
	MST, Inc.		NeuroPace, Inc.
					
	By:
	/s/ Jurgen Lindner		By:
	/s/Rebecca Kuhn
		Jurgen Lindner			Rebecca Kuhn
					
	Its General Manager Micro Systems Engineering, Inc.
		Its Chief Financial Officer & Vice President


						
	Amendment One to the Supply Agreement	Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15394]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 573

[Docket No. FDA-2014-F-2307]


Humic Product Trade Association; Withdrawal of Food Additive 
Petition (Animal Use)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification; withdrawal of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive 
petition (FAP 2290) proposing that the food additive regulations be 
amended to provide for the safe use of humate, fluvic acid, and humic 
substances as a source of iron in animal feed.

DATES: The food additive petition published on January 6, 2015 (80 FR 
422), was withdrawn on April 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the 
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into 
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts; and/or go to the Dockets 
Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carissa Doody, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine (HFV-228), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., 
Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6283, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#074466756e74746629636868637e47616366296f6f7429606871"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86c5e7f4eff5f5e7a8e2e9e9e2ffc6e0e2e7a8eeeef5a8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice of petition published in the 
Federal Register on January 6, 2015 (80 FR 422), FDA announced that a 
food additive petition (FAP 2290) had been filed by Humic Products 
Trade Assn., P.O. Box 963, Spring Green, WI 53588. The petition 
proposed to amend part 573 Food Additives Permitted in Feed and 
Drinking Water of Animals (21 CFR part 573), to provide for the safe 
use of humate, fluvic acid, and humic substances as a source of iron in 
animal feed. Humic Products Trade Assn., has now withdrawn the petition 
without prejudice to a future filing in accordance with 21 CFR 571.7.

     Dated: July 13, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-15394 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         6,790
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 15,289
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2,516
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              22,883
<PP&E>                                        15,344
<DEPRECIATION>                                11,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                29,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         25,594
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      69,634
<OTHER-SE>                                    73,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  29,829
<SALES>                                       10,612
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              45,998
<CGS>                                          2,515
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 32,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              20,541
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               307
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (9,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (9,386)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (9,386)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.39)
        


</TABLE>
#### George NICHOLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-890.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 23, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  Robert R. Galvin,  Chief  Financial  Officer of NuCO2 Inc., a
Florida  corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby certify,  to his knowledge,
that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004 of
the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                          /s/ Robert R. Galvin
                                          --------------------
                                          Robert R. Galvin
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          May 14, 2004
```
#### Jerrol SLOCUMB, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-674.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 15, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, Appellant, v. A. J. CUMMINGS and Sadie Belk Cummings, his wife, Bertram M. Gerson and Clara D. Gerson, his wife, and Clara D. Clements, Amelia King Buckley and Mary Jane King, Appellees.

Nos. 70-1, 70-2.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 8, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 2, 1970.

*502Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty., for appellant.

John M. Murrell, John M. Murrell, Jr., W. F. Esslinger, Fowler, White, Humkey, Burnett, Hurley & Banick, Miami, for ap-pellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES A. CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PEARSON, Chief Judge.

These appeals by the City of Miami Beach are from judgments each of which awarded attorney’s fees to a landowner after the dismissal of proceedings in eminent domain. The city brought a suit to take the appellees’ property, but because the awards were higher than the city’s available money the city abandoned the proceeding. See City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 109, where an award of attorney’s fees in that suit was affirmed.

Later the city brought the present suit to condemn the same land for the same purpose. The second suit was dismissed upon the motion of the appellees. Thereafter appellees sought a judgment for their attorney’s fees as costs. See Section *73.091,*Fla.Stat.1 F.S.A. The trial court took testimony and entered the judgments which are now appealed from.

Appellant’s first point urges that attorney’s fees are not properly assessed against the condemning authority when the suit is dismissed at the instance of the defendants. The city recognizes that under the law of this state attorney’s fees may be allowed when the condemning authority dismisses its own suit. See City of Hallandale v. Chatlos, Fla.1970, 236 So.2d 761, and cases cited therein.

There is no authority for appellant’s proposition that a suit in eminent domain dismissed at the defendant’s motion should be treated differently from a suit dismissed at the instance of a condemning authority. Such a holding would penalize a defendant for advancing a defense to which he is legally entitled and would therefore not be in accordance with due process. Cf. State ex rel. Paoli v. Baldwin, 159 Fla. 165, 31 So.2d 627, 630 (1947).

Appellant’s point urging that the amounts awarded as attorney’s fees were so large as to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial judge must fail. The awards were proper because they were within the limits testified to by expert witnesses. City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 109.

Affirmed.

1

. Section “73.091 *Costs of the Proceedings.*— The petitioner shall pay all reasonable costs of the proceedings in the circuit court, including a reasonable attorney’s fee to be assessed by that court.”