alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles T. FREELOVE, Appellant v. ATLAS ROOFING COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 15244.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

Jan. 28, 1952.

Lattimore & Lattimore, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Piranio & Piranio, and Robert C. Johnson, all of Dallas, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

An opinion was rendered by the Supreme Court of Texas in 245 S.W.2d 477 and has now become final.

A certified copy of said opinion was received by this Court today, January 28, 1952. In accordance with the provisions of said opinion, this Court has this day with*974drawn its former opinion reported in 239 S.W.2d 399.

Judgment of this Court is conformed with said decision and ruling of the Supreme Court and judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
**
**Exhibit 31.4**

**CERTIFICATION BY THE**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**17 CFR 240.13a-14(a)**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Thomas D. Donohue, certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report onForm 10-K for the year ended May 2, 2020 of Barnes & Noble Education, Inc.; and 

 
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to statea 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 report. 

Date: August 31, 2020 

 
By:  /s/ Thomas D. Donohue 
Thomas D. Donohue

*Executive VicePresident, Chief**Financial Officer*

*Barnes & Noble Education, Inc.*
**
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 248 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 248

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the eulogies and encomiums for the late President of the United 
States, Richard M. Nixon, as expressed in the House of Representatives 
and the Senate, together with the text of the funeral services for the 
late President in Yorba Linda, California, shall be printed as a House 
document, with illustrations and suitable binding. The document shall 
be prepared under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing.
    Sec. 2. In addition to the usual number, there shall be printed the 
lesser of--
            (1) 32,500 copies of the document, of which 22,150 copies 
        shall be for the use of the House of Representatives and 10,350 
        copies shall be for the use of the Senate; or
            (2) such number of copies of the document as does not 
        exceed a total production and printing cost of $500,000, with 
        distribution to be allocated in the same proportion as 
        described in paragraph (1).

            Passed the House of Representatives August 3, 1994.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 248

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the printing of eulogies, encomiums, and funeral services 
     for the late President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon.
```
#### WHATLEY v. STATE.

No. 24604.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 18, 1950.

Enoch G. Fletcher, Grand Saline, for appellant.

*972George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of possessing whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry area, and his punishment was assessed by the jury at a fine of $250 and imprisonment in jail for'six months.

The state proved that Van Zandt County was , a dry area. and that appellant was caught in said county in possession of one pint of whiskey.

There was no evidence offered to prove that appellant possessed such whiskey for the purpose, of sale, and the amount of whiskey he possessed was not sufficient to raise the presumption that it was possessed for the purpose of sale.

The evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction, as properly confessed by the state attorney.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Case 2:22-cr-00046-Z-BR Document 304 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 751
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66751-66752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28644]


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

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the forthcoming regular meeting 
of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).

DATE AND TIME: The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the 
offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on 
November 9, 2000, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes 
its business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Mikel Williams, Secretary to the 
Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4025, TDD (703) 883-4444.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be 
open to the public (limited space available), and parts of this meeting 
will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to 
board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements 
in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

[[Page 66752]]

Open Session

1. Approval of Minutes

October 12, 2000 (Open and Closed)

2. Report

Report on Corporate Approvals

3. New Business

A. Other

Corporate and Chartering Approvals

B. ACA Restructures

AgChoice Farm Credit, ACA
Carolina Farm Credit, ACA
Central Kentucky Agricultural Credit Association
Farm Credit of Southwest Florida, ACA

Closed Session\*\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \*\ Session Closed--Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and 
(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Report

OSMO Report

    Dated: November 2, 2000.
Kelly Mikel Williams,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 00-28644 Filed 11-3-00; 2:22 pm]
BILLING CODE 6705-02-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,552
<SECURITIES>                                       472
<RECEIVABLES>                                      133
<ALLOWANCES>                                        21
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,259
<PP&E>                                           1,795
<DEPRECIATION>                                     267
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              499
<BONDS>                                          3,160
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        940
<COMMON>                                         1,434
<OTHER-SE>                                       (988)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,142
<SALES>                                            223
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   223
<CGS>                                              164
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      164
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   227
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     6
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  79
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (189)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (189)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (189)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.35)


</TABLE>
Case 4:22-cr-00074-P Document 23 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 38
Case 4:22-cr-00074-P Document 23 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 39
#### BURTON v. LAFAVERS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 13, 1952.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 27, 1953.

*731H. K. Spear, Somerset, L. C. Lawrence, Jamestown, for appellant.

Leonard E. Wilson, Jamestown, Sam C. Kennedy, Somerset, for appellees.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

The question involved on this appeal is whether a memorandum executed in negotiations for the sale of land is sufficient to take the transaction out of the Statute of Frauds, KRS 371.010(6). The appeal is from a judgment holding that the writing was insufficient.

Mr. and Mrs. Lafavers, as vendors, executed the following writing to the vendee, Thelmer Burton:

> “this is to show that Thelmer Burton Bought my place for 6000.00 Payed 100 down this day June 23, 1951.”

This action for specific performance was instituted when the Lafavers refused to execute a deed for the land.

Under KRS 371.010(6), a writing is required to be sufficient in itself to identify the property sold. Generally, the description is regarded as sufficient if it identifies the property when it is read in the light of the circumstances of possession or ownership and of the situation of the parties when the negotiations took place and the writing executed. Montgomery v. Graves, 301 Ky. 260, 191 S.W.2d 399, and cases cited therein.

The pleadings show that the La-favers owned two adjoining tracts of land in Russell County and that they did not own any other land in the county or in the state. Moreover, the land in question is the land intended to be conveyed under the memorandum. We think the writing is sufficient to identify the property. “My place” is a colloquial expression which identifies the habitat of the owner with relative certainty. In Henderson v. Perkins, 94 Ky. 207, 21 S.W. 1035, 1036, the words “my home place and storehouse” were held to be sufficient to identify the property. See also Moayon v. Moayon, 114 Ky. 855, 72 S.W. 33, 60 L.R.A. 415, for a discussion of similar expressions held to be sufficient.

Judgment reversed, with directions to set it aside, and for the entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion.

DUNCAN, J., not sitting.
# Exhibit 23

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-53593, File No.
333-53595, File No. 333-94207, File No. 333-85288, File No. 333-88572, File No. 333-88574
and File No. 333-134502) of our reports dated March 16, 2007 with respect to the 2006
consolidated financial statements of Macatawa Bank Corporation, Macatawa managements
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports are included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.

| | /s/Crowe Chizek and Company LLCCrowe Chizek and Company LLC
| | -----------------------------------------------------------

Grand Rapids, MichiganMarch
16, 2007
#### KIRK v. REYNOLDS.

No. 15296.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

Dec. 14, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1952.

*713Walter Nelson, Jr., and Eugene Sherrod, Jr., both of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

W. E. Fitzgerald, of Wichita Falls, for appellee.

HALL, Chief Justice.

A district.court of Wichita County overruled appellant’s plea of privilege, hence this appeal consisting of two points.

Appellee Robert W. Reynolds sued appellant T. A. Kirk, a resident of Eastland County, along with a resident of Wichita County, for recovery of money alleged due him, based upon an alleged verbal contract for the drilling of an oil well.

Appellant admits in his first point that a cause of action was proven against the resident defendant and that only the pleadings are necessarily resorted to as showing a cause of action against the nonresident defendant in order to hold venue under Exception 4 to Article 1995, R.C.S. Appellant submits, however, that the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s plea because it was clearly shown by the evidence adduced that appellee’s allegations are fraudulent and therefore cannot be made the basis for sustaining venue as against a nonresident’s plea. Appellant’s contention was overruled by the Supreme Court in Stockyards National Batik v. Maples, 127 Tex. 633, 95 S.W.2d 1300, 1304, wherein, among other things, it held: “It is true that if upon such hearing evidence were admitted bearing upon the merits of the plaintiff’s case against the nonresident defendant, such defendant might be able to prove the plaintiff’s suit against him to be wholly unfounded; but such proof is properly made upon a trial on the merits. The statutory provisions as to the defendant’s privilege and the plea of privilege were not intended to protect defendants from unfounded suits.”

Appellant’s second point charges error of the trial court in overruling his plea of privilege because there was insufficient evidence introduced to support such action. It seems that appellant’s main contention is that both pleadings and evidence are insufficient to support a cause of action ■against him based upon principal and agent or upon the existence of a partnership between him and the resident defendant.

We find appellant to be in error. Appellee plead that both of the defendants owed him the sum of $13,506.50, “* * * because that is the exact amount disclosed by the record of said indebtedness kept by the defendants herein * * * that defendants, and each of them, promised and agreed to pay this plaintiff the sums of money charged therefor in said account specified, * * *. That said account is past due and unpaid, and the -defendants, though often requested, have heretofore failed and refused and still fail and refuse to pay the same or any part thereof, *

We have read appellee’s testimony and it adequately states a cause of action against the resident defendant.

For the reasons stated, the trial court’s order overruling appellant’s plea of privilege is affirmed. ■
Exhibit 4.17

 

JOINDER TO COLLATERAL AGENCY AGREEMENT

 

ADDITIONAL PURCHASER

 

Upon execution of this Joinder to Collateral Agency Agreement (this “Joinder”), the undersigned shall, from August 19, 2015, become a “Noteholder” and a “Secured Party” under the Collateral Agency Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2012 (as amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified, the “Agreement”), by and among the Collateral Agent and the Noteholders party thereto and as acknowledged and consented to by the Obligors.  Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Joinder shall have meanings given in the Agreement.

 

As a party to the Agreement, the undersigned agrees to be bound by (a) all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement in its capacity as “Noteholder” and “Secured Party”, and (b) appoints U.S. Bank National Association as the Collateral Agent under the Agreement and the other Collateral Documents.

 

[Signature Page Follows]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Joinder to be duly executed as of the date set forth above.

 

	
 
    	
ALPHA CAPITAL ANSTALT
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Konrad   Ackermann
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Konrad Ackermann
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Director
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Address for notices:
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Lettstrasse 32
    
	
 
    	
9490 Vaduz
    
	
 
    	
Principality of Liechtenstein
Order entered March 20, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00987-CR

BRANDON CHARLES SAMPSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-75082-S

ORDER

Before the Court are pro se appellant’s March 3, 2020 and March 17, 2020 

motions for extension of time to file his pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. 

We GRANT the motions and extend the time to file appellant’s pro se response to 

June 5, 2020. 

We DIRECT the Clerk to transmit a copy of this order by electronic 

transmission to counsel for the parties.
–2–

We further DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first class 

mail, to Brandon Charles Sampson; TDCJ No. 02287033; Coffield Unit; 2661 FM 

2054; Tennessee Colony, Texas 75884-5000.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 236 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 236

Authorizing the 1994 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the 
                            Capitol Grounds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 1994

Mr. Traficant submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the 1994 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the 
                            Capitol Grounds.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF SPECIAL OLYMPICS TORCH RELAY 
              THROUGH CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    On May 20, 1994, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate may 
jointly designate, the 1994 Special Olympics Torch Relay may be run 
through the Capitol Grounds, as part of the journey of the Special 
Olympics torch to the District of Columbia Special Olympics summer 
games at Gallaudet University in the District of Columbia.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such action as may be necessary 
to carry out section 1.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event authorized by section 1.

                                 <all>
```
**
**Exhibit 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF AB PRIVATE CREDIT INVESTORS CORPORATION**

 

**NAME**
  
**Jurisdiction of Organization**

**ABPCIC Concerto Holdings LLC**
  **Delaware**
**ABPCIC Equity Holdings, LLC**
  **Delaware**
**ABPCIC NC Holdings LLC**
  **Delaware**
**ABPCIC Funding II LLC**
  **Delaware**
**ABPCIC Funding III LLC**
  **Delaware**
**ABPCI Direct Lending Fund CLO VI Depositor LLC**
  **Delaware**
**ABPCI Direct Lending Fund CLO VI Ltd**
  **Cayman Islands**
**ABPCIC Global Radar, LLC**
  **Delaware**
**ABPCIC BE Holdings, LLC**
  **Delaware**
**ABPCIC AOM LLC**
  **Delaware**
**ABPCIC Avant LLC**
  **Delaware**
 
**
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73 
          - [DA 00-2331; MM Docket No. 00-112; RM-9901] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Correcting amendments. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document contains corrections to the final regulations, which were published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on September 20, 2000 (65FR56799). The regulations related to                               ( print page 65272)                            the information concerning Radio Broadcasting Services in Weiser, ID. This document contains a correction to that rule.                     

# DATES:

Effective on November 1, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This document corrects Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotment under Oregon to remove Weiser, Channel 280C1 and by adding Weiser, Channel 280C1 under Idaho. FR Doc. 00-24069, published on September 20, 2000 (65FR56799), inadvertently added Weiser, Channel 280C1 to Oregon instead of Idaho. 

# List of Subjects 47 CFR Part 73

      - Radio broadcasting

Accordingly, 47 CFR part 73 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments: 

# PART 73—[RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES] 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: 

Authority:47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Oregon, is amended by removing Weiser, Channel 280C1. 

3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Idaho, is amended by adding Weiser, Channel 280C1. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 00-27990 Filed 10-31-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Case 4:22-cr-00099-P Document 24 Filed 05/25/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 84
Case 4:22-cr-00099-P Document 24 Filed 05/25/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 85
EXHIBIT 10.16

                              SEBASTIAN E. CASSETTA
                               7 MORNINGSIDE LANE
                           WESTPORT, CONNECTICUT 06880

December 31, 1999

SmartServ Online, Inc.
One Station Place
Stamford, Connecticut 06902

Gentlemen:

For good and valuable  consideration which is hereby acknowledged,  I, Sebastian
E. Cassetta, agree to amend a certain Restricted Stock Purchase Agreement, dated
December  28, 1998  between  myself and  SmartServ  Online,  Inc. to convert the
interest  portion of the note  obligation  thereunder for the payment of 618,239
shares of restricted  common stock from a non-recourse  obligation to a recourse
obligation.

Accordingly,  the  Promissory  Note  dated  December  29,  1998 in the amount of
$1,360,125.80  shall be  cancelled  and a new note in the amount of  $457,496.86
shall be executed.

Sebastian E. Cassetta

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