alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mallory v. French.

1. Tax Sale: prior sale: evidence. Where one claims under two sales for taxes of the same property, upon the first sale being shown to he void it is competent to introduce the second deed to establish his title.

*Appeal from TJnion District Court.*

Thursday, October 5.

The petition alleges that plaintiff -is the owner of certain lands described therein, that defendant makes some claim thereto, and asks that his title be established and quieted. Among other defenses relied on is that plaintiff purchased the lands at a tax sale held in July, 1868, and obtained deeds in pursuance to such sale in J uly, 1871, and that there was unlawful combination among the bidders at such sale; that there was a private and not a public sale. There was a trial and judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

*Stone <&*Ayres, for appellant.

*Stuart*Brothers, for appellee.

Seevers, Ch. J.

The plaintiff introduced in evidence four tax deeds, showing a regular sale of the premises in controversy to him in July, 1868, and offered to introduc'e four other like deeds, showing a sale to him of said premises in October, 1868; to the introduction of these last deeds defendant objected, “ because one. has no right to acquire a tax deed, and then allow the land to be. again sold and buy it in, multiplying deeds as has been done in this case,” but said objections were overruled and the deeds admitted in evidence.

It is now claimed that the last named deeds were inadmissible because no such issue was made, and that under the pleadings the only issue was as to the validity of the deeds executed in pursuance of the sale made in July, 1868. No such objection having been made below, it cannot be urged here for the first time. The plaintiff did not, and was not required *134to state in- the petition when, how, or from whom his title was derived. -The defendant in the answer set up for the first time, that plaintiff’s title was derived from a tax sale made July, 1868, and alleged that such sale was private and not public, and that there was an unlawful combination among the bidders thereat.

Evidence was introduced tending to prove such allegations, and if it be admitted that the sale made in July, 1868, is void for the reasons alleged, then the plaintiff' never had or procured any title under that sale. If void at all it was so from the beginning. Such being the case, it is difficult to see why the plaintiff might not purchase the lands at the tax sale made in October, 1868.

The claim made by the defendant is, that the sale made in July, 1868, is void, and that in October is also void, because of the previous sale. He cannot thus blow hot and cold in the same breath. If there was no sale in July, the plaintiff could well purchase in October, and there being no other objection made to the October sale than the one indicated, it must be held valid, and the judgment of the court below

Affirmed.
TS-ASLT40/50

Attachment #6

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 3

Environmental Release and Disposal Info rmation on the New Chemical Substance

at Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter – Manufacture and Processing
EXHIBIT 32



November 9, 2020



Via EDGAR



Securities and Exchange Commission

Judiciary Plaza

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549



Re: Certification pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Ladies and Gentlemen:



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of VOC Energy Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual
capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



| | (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 Trust.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The above certification
is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part
of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



| | The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.
| | -----------------------------------------------
| | Trustee for VOC Energy Trust                   
| |                                                
| | By:                                            
| |                                                
| |
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Potomac Bancshares, Inc. (the company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gayle Marshall Johnson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the 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 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.

|/s/ Gayle Marshall
      Johnson                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|Gayle Marshall
      Johnson                        
|Sr. Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer
|March 26,
      2007                                

73

---
FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT J AN 23, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble K. Micha el Moore, U .S. District Judg e for the Southern District of F lorida, * sitti ngby designation. [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11929

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -011 21 -C V -T C B -1 B E T T Y E F A N N I N G , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s B O S T O N M A R K E T C O R P O R A T I O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 23, 2008) B ef ore H U L L and P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and M O O R E , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M:2

A f t e rr e vi e w a nd or a l a r gum e nt , the C our tc onc l ude s tha tP l a i nt i f f - A ppe l l a nt B e t ty e F a nni ng ha s nots how n a ny r e ve r s i bl e e r r ori n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s M a r c h 26, 2007 or de ra dopt i ng the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on of F e brua r y 26, 2007. T hus , the C our ta f f i r m s the M a r c h 26, 2007 or de rgr a nt i ng sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of D ef endant -A pp el l ee B ost on M ar ketC orpo ra t i on as t o F anni ng ’ s f

eder al cl ai m s a nd di sm i ss i ng her s t at e- l aw cl ai m s w i tho utprej ud i ce . AF F I RME D.
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-Kof Intrado Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned, GeorgeHeinrichs, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)   the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                      | /s/ George Heinrichs                  |   |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                      | George  Heinrichs                     |
|                      | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                      | *(Principal Executive Officer)*       |
|                      |                                  |
| Dated: March 7, 2006 |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eastern Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Rozelle, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: February 8, 2011





/s/ Joseph RozelleJoseph Rozelle

President

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)











The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit 10.21

 

	
Cimarex   Energy Co.
    	
 
    	
[Letterhead of Thomas E. Jorden]
    
	
1700   Lincoln Street
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Suite 1800
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Denver,   Colorado 80203-4518
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Phone:   303-295-3995
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
FAX:   303-295-3494
    	
 
    	
[Cimarex Logo]
    


 

June 9, 2010

 

John L. Lambuth

18273 E. Euclid Pl.

Aurora, CO 80016

 

Dear John:

 

With this letter I am confirming the substance of the matters you and I discussed on May 28, 2010.  During that discussion I expressed Cimarex’s belief that you are an essential member of the Exploration team and that we believe your skills and commitment are important to the on-going success of Cimarex’s exploration efforts.

 

Because of our desire to retain you as an essential member of our exploration program, I am confirming Cimarex’s commitment to pay a Retention Incentive to you in the amount of $600,000 on June 1, 2014.  That payment is contingent on your continued employment with Cimarex through that date.  The payment will also be subject to required federal, state and local wage withholding.

 

If your employment with Cimarex were involuntarily terminated before June 1, 2014, for any reason other than cause (defined as willfully engaging in misconduct, or committing a business crime or felony), then the Retention Incentive would become immediately payable in full.  If a “change in control event” (as defined in Article II(f) of the Cimarex Energy Co. Change in Control Severance Plan (effective April 1, 2005) referred to as the “Change of Control Plan”) occurs before June 1, 2014, the $600,000 Retention Incentive will be immediately payable to you.  Any additional benefits to which you may be entitled under the Change of Control Plan will be in addition to the Retention Incentive.  A copy of the Change of Control Plan is attached to this letter for your reference.

 

John, I want to congratulate you for having earned this Retention Incentive and thank you for the ongoing contribution you make to Cimarex.  I look forward to continuing to work with you in the future.

 

Very truly yours,

 

	
/s/   Thomas E. Jorden
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Thomas   E. Jorden
    	
 
    
	
Executive   Vice President — Exploration
    	
 
    
	
Cimarex Energy Co.
----

Appeal brought on 11 February 2005 by Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. against the judgment delivered on 7 December 2004 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-240/02 Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-68/05 P)

(2005/C 82/45)

Language of the case: Dutch

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 December 2004 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-240/02, Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. v Commission of the European Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 February 2005 by Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A., represented by M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder, advocates.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

and order the Commission to pay the costs, at both first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea

Infringement of Community law by virtue of the fact that the Court of First Instance held that the levy on non-exported C-sugar is not an import or export duty for the purposes of Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79.

Second alternative plea

The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that the levy on non-exported C-sugar must indeed be treated as an import duty for the purposes of Regulation No 1430/79.

That plea is subdivided into the following limbs:

Third alternative plea

In dealing with the second and third pleas put forward in the alternative by Cosun in its application, the Court of First Instance acted in breach of Community law.

That plea may be subdivided as follows:

Fourth alternative plea

Infringement of the principles of equal treatment, legal certainty and proportionality.

----
EXHIBIT 8.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                     |  |                       
|------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------
|Subsidiaries                         |  | Jurisdiction          
|Andina Inversiones Societarias S.A.  |  | Chile                 
|Andina Bottling Investments Dos S.A. |  | Chile                 
|Andina Bottling Investments S.A.     |  | Chile                 
|Servicios Multivending Ltda.         |  | Chile                 
|Transportes Andina Refrescos Ltda.   |  | Chile                 
|Vital Aguas S.A.                     |  | Chile                 
|Vital S.A.                           |  | Chile                 
|Rio de Janeiro Refrescos Ltda.       |  | Brazil                
|Embotelladora del Atlántico S.A.     |  | Argentina             
|Abisa Corp. S.A.                     |  | British Virgin Islands
|RJR Investments Corp.                |  | British Virgin Islands
#### In the Matter of Board of Education of the Cold Spring Harbor Central School District, Appellant, v Cold Spring Harbor Association of Education Resource Personnel, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) to stay arbitration, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered July 18, 1989, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner and the respondent are parties to a collective bargaining agreement. Article XIII of that agreement, governing rates of pay, provides that all "new hirees” were to be placed on step 2 of that salary schedule. It is undisputed that the petitioner placed two newly hired teacher aides on step 3 of the salary schedule. The respondent filed a grievance challenging that placement of the newly hired teacher aides as a violation of the collective bargaining agreement. When the grievance could not be resolved, the respondent served a demand for arbitration upon the petitioner. The petitioner then commenced this proceeding to stay the arbitration. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s application, and we affirm.

The collective bargaining agreement in this case clearly provides that recourse to arbitration is available to members of the respondent for any violation of its express provisions. *520Since it is undisputed that the petitioner has violated article XIII of the collective bargaining agreement, the respondent is entitled to arbitration *(see, Matter of Franklin Cent. School [Franklin Teachers Assn.]*51 NY2d 348). The respondent is an interested party, since one of its legitimate concerns is that all newly hired teacher aides are paid equally. Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00094-CR

SERGIO ALBERTO GOMEZ

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On appeal from the

139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR-5335-11-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 18, 2015.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>            FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>              JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                         286988
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                 6323446
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    0
<PP&E>                        6948665
<DEPRECIATION>                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               51540809
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               0
<BONDS>                      36910472
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                    3724915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 51540809
<SALES>                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              4630619
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 2872669
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            4345499
<INCOME-PRETAX>               1261222
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           1261222
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                  1261222
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 45288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19275]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service 
Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 6, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
August 30, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express Contract 65 to Competitive Product 
List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-217, 
CP2018-299.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-19275 Filed 9-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SPENCER ANTONIO TUGGLE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-30248

D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00074-SI-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 8, 2016 

Portland, Oregon

Before: FISHER, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

1. Other than the Fifth Amendment problem discussed below, the district

court did not abuse its discretion by requiring Spencer Tuggle to (1) complete a

domestic violence evaluation, and (2) refrain from any contact with the mother of

his son not related to childcare or visitation. After considering the totality of the

FILED

MAR 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Page 2 of 3

circumstances, the court reasonably found that these additional conditions would

aid Tuggle’s rehabilitation and help protect the public. The court did not

impermissibly rely on unsubstantiated allegations in imposing these new

conditions. See United States v. Abbouchi, 502 F.3d 850, 857–58 (9th Cir. 2007). 

The court based its decision on information collected by Tuggle’s probation officer

and Tuggle’s own testimony at the revocation hearing, which established that, at

the very least, Tuggle’s relationship with his ex-girlfriend was sufficiently volatile

to warrant the court’s intervention.

2. Tuggle’s Fifth Amendment challenge to the domestic violence evaluation

requirement is ripe for review at this time. To complete a meaningful evaluation,

Tuggle will necessarily be required to answer a number of potentially

incriminating questions regarding any past history of domestic violence he may

have. See United States v. Streich, 560 F.3d 926, 931–32 (9th Cir. 2009). The

district court stated that it was “not ordering [Tuggle] to waive any of his

constitutional rights.” By so stating, the district court may have intended to

provide Tuggle with immunity for any statements he makes during the course of

the evaluation, to ensure that he can comply with the mandatory condition without

risking either self-incrimination or revocation of his supervised release. See

United States v. Bahr, 730 F.3d 963, 966–67 (9th Cir. 2013). However, because
Page 3 of 3

the record is unclear on that score, we vacate the domestic violence evaluation

requirement and remand to the district court for clarification. If the district court

does not grant Tuggle immunity, he may not be punished for refusing to answer

any questions posed during the course of the evaluation that present a real and

appreciable risk of self-incrimination. See United States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d

1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2005). 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, and REMANDED.
**Exhibit 21**
1.  DiamondCluster International North America, Inc. 2.  DiamondCluster International IC LLC 3.  DiamondCluster International B.V. 4.  DiamondCluster International Ltda 5.  DiamondCluster International SARL 6.  DiamondCluster International Managementberatung GmbH 7.  DiamondCluster International Consultadori para a Economia Digital, Lda 8.  DiamondCluster International S.L. 9.  DiamondCluster International Finance S.L. 10.  Diamond Partners Limited 11.  DiamondCluster International Limited 12.  DiamondCluster International FZ-LLC