alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MARTIN et al. v. TEMPLE TRUST CO.

Motion No. 7524; No. 7826.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

April 19, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1934.

• Dibrell & Starnes, of Coleman, for appellants.

J. B. Daniel, of Temple, and Critz & Woodward, of Coleman, for appellee.

BAUGH, Justice.

This suit involves the same character of transaction as that involved in the case of M. L. Walker et al. v. Temple Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 60 S.W.(2d) 826, this'day decided, *430except as to parties, amounts, and due dates. In tliis case the loan was made to J. M. Martin in April, 1927. In January, 1929, Martin and wife sold and conveyed the land involved to J. H. Shannon, who, as part consideration therefor, assumed the payment of the unma-tured portion of said loan; and in March, 1929, Shannon sold and conveyed the land to M. L. Walker, who as part consideration therefor assumed the payment of' the unma-tured portion of the principal of said loan recited to he $3,250, with interest thereon provided for in said notes from November 1,1928. This suit is against Martin and Walker for the balance due on said notes and for foreclosure of the deed of trust liens securing their payment, with remission and cancellation of, all future unearned interest both on the principal notes and on the interest note.

The judgment, for the reasons stated in the Walker Case, is affirmed on the ground that the loan should riot be constriied' as usurious in any event. And, even if it should- be so construed, the appellant Walker could not recover what he had paid thereunder, because he expressly assumed the payment of a stipulated, amount named in the conveyance to him, thereby precluding any right in him to assert usury, if any, in the original loan. See Jesse E. Moore v. Temple Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 60 S.W.(2d) 828, this day decided, and authorities there pited.

For the reasons stated in the above-cited cases, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.-

On Motion for Rehearing.

In our, original opinion herein we affirmed the judgniént of the trial court upon two grounds: (1) That the loan involved, which was similar to that involved in Walker v. Temple Trust Company (Tex. Civ. App.) 60 S.W.(2d) 826, was not usurious; and (2) because Walker, who purchased the property and assumed the debt against it by a new contract in a stipulated amount, could not, after having done so, assert the usury, if any, In the original transaction; the latter holding being based on our conclusions announced in Moore v. Temple Trust Company (Tex. Civ. App.) 60 S.W.(2d) 828, 829.

Applications for writs of error were made in both of the above cases. The Supreme Court granted a writ in the Walker Case, but refused a writ in the Moore Case. In view of- these circumstances, therefore, we base our affirmance of this case upon the grounds stated in Moore v. Temple Trust Company, supra, and not' as stated in our original opinion, upon the grounds set forth in Walker v. Temple Trust Company, supra. Based upon our second ground stated in the original opinion rendered herein, therefore, appellants’ motion- for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled. •
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAMIAN E. GRIFFIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

DAVID LONG, Warden; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16295 

D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01361-BAM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 16, 2018**

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Damian E. Griffin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the 

magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due 

process violations related to deductions from his inmate trust account. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 25 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-16295 

judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 

F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Griffin consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Griffin’s action before 

the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a), 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must 

consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, Williams v. 

King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order 

and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-27-1998
<CASH>                                              54
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                       544
<INVENTORY>                                     10,970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,007
<PP&E>                                          39,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,821
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,261
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,085
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,521
<SALES>                                         69,041
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,041
<CGS>                                           51,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (1)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   180
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,871
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,728
<INCOME-TAX>                                       890
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,838
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,838
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

MAXCO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
EXHIBIT 32.2 - CERTIFICATION

                            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 this annual report on Form 10-K of Maxco, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vincent Shunsky, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

      (2) Information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Date: July 14, 2005

                                             /s/ Vincent Shunsky
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Vincent Shunsky
                                             Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Joseph Homann, Plaintiff, *v.*John M. O’Grady, Individually and as President of Wine *&*Liquor Store Employees Union, Local 122, AFL-CIO, et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

April 29, 1958.

*593
      *Irving T. Bergman*for plaintiff.

*Jacob Friedberg*for defendants.

Cortland A. Johnson, J.

In this action to restrain the picketing of plaintiff’s place of business by defendant union, plaintiff seeks a temporary injunction.

The plaintiff owns a liquor store. He has three employees, one who has been employed for 23 years, one for 20 years and one for over 5 years. Defendant union has been trying for a period of two years to get them into the union. The employer has given free opportunity for the union’s efforts. The employees have not been convinced of the benefits of union membership. Defendant O’G-rady, the union president, deposes that “ We do not believe all is lost and Mr. O’Neil (one of the clerks) and/or any other employee may ultimately change his mind ’ ’. To help the employees to change their minds, the pickets have been placed near the establishment, to discourage customers from coming in, but chiefly to check deliveries of merchandise. This they have done.

There is, in the court’s opinion, no labor dispute involved in this transaction. A union intent upon compelling unwilling clerks to join it is trying to cause loss to them if they do not join and loss to the employer if he does not make them join. The action is that of a union against an employer and his employees for the purpose of unionizing a business against the desire of the help and the owner, or destroying it. High-sounding phrases may be framed to make this sound right. ‘ ‘ Labor dispute ” is not one of them. I think a more accurate description of what is going on is “unlawful coercion”; I think it is wrong, not right; and I believe the harm to plaintiff from its continuance may properly be described as irreparable. Accordingly, the motion for a temporary injunction will be granted. Bond, $1,000. Plaintiff will promptly notice the case which will be carried when noticed at the foot of May, 1958 issues.

Settle order on notice.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of National Presto Industries, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its Staff upon request.





Date:   March 17, 2008
        /S/ M.J. CohenM. J. Cohen
Chief Executive Officer






---
J.



# Ow? Cherry The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5). Accordingly, we approve attorney Jeannie Jiwon Park's resignation. SCR 98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted.

It is so ORDERED.

Gibbons

, J. Hardesty 

# 0-6 Th

r Parraguirre 

# t , G 6 

# ' ,
J. Douglas

Saitta J.

cc: David A. Clark, Bar Counsel Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Jeannie Jiwon Park Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A ..meen
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16696]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0286; Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-22]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes; Southwestern 
United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal 
Register on June 14, 2012, that establishes two RNAV routes in the 
southwest United States. This action corrects the latitude/longitude 
coordinates for the NOCHI waypoint (WP) as appears in the description 
of RNAV route T-310.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, July 26, 2012. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and 
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace, Regulations 
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On June 14, 2012, the FAA published a final rule in the Federal 
Register establishing two RNAV routes, T-306 and T-310, in the 
southwestern United States (77 FR 35618). Subsequent to publication, an 
error was found in the latitude/longitude coordinates for the NOCHI 
waypoint (WP) in the description of T-310. The NOCHI WP also appears in 
the description of T-306, but the coordinates are correct in that 
description.
    Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 
7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which 
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV route listed in 
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the 
coordinates for the NOCHI waypoint as published in the Federal Register 
on June 14, 2012 (77 FR 35618) (FR Doc. 2012-14406) for RNAV route T-
310, is corrected under the description as follows:

Paragraph 6011--United States Area Navigation Routes

* * * * *

T-310 [Corrected]

0
On page 35619, line 23, remove ``NOCHI, AZ WP (lat. 31[deg]59'58'' N., 
long. 108[deg]30'51'' W.)'' and insert ``NOCHI, AZ WP (Lat. 
32[deg]02'00'' N., long. 109[deg]45'30'' W.)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2012.
Gary A. Norek,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2012-16696 Filed 7-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Exhibit 10-c







AT&T INC.


 


HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE


 


PROPOSED RESOLUTION, September 28, 2017


 







Whereas, AT&T Inc. ("AT&T Inc." or the "Company") has embarked on an operational reorganization that will allow it to compete more effectively across a broad range of communications and entertainment businesses; and


Whereas, it is critical to the Company that John Stephens, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, AT&T Inc., be retained through December 30, 2020;


Now, therefore, be it:


RESOLVED, that the provisions of the 2011 Incentive Plan, the 2016 Incentive Plan and of any successor plan relating to the automatic proration of performance shares upon Termination of Employment, as that term is defined in the 2016 Incentive Plan, shall not apply under the following circumstances:



	
1.

	
The proration shall not apply to the performance shares granted after the date of this resolution to Mr. Stephens if he remains employed through December 30, 2020;













	
2.

	
In addition, the existing and future performance shares granted to Mr. Stephens shall not be prorated:













		(a)	
if Mr. Stephens reports to an officer or employee of the Company or any of its affiliates other than the Chief Executive Officer of AT&T Inc.; or













		(b)	
if the Company creates a higher-level position (e.g., Vice Chairman or Chief Operating Officer of AT&T Inc.) and Mr. Stephens is not placed in that role or an equivalent role; and







RESOLVED FURTHER, that the proper officers of AT&T Inc. are authorized to do or cause to be done any and all such acts and things, and to execute and deliver any and all documents and papers that they may deem necessary, proper or advisable to carry out the foregoing resolutions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         819,302
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  647,597
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,478,640
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,019,969
<PP&E>                                       5,467,808
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,846,133
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,109,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,173,467
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,333
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,122,862
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,109,810
<SALES>                                      9,335,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,335,077
<CGS>                                        6,650,211
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,650,211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,384,333
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                300,533
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   300,533
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 11.1



                CAPITAL FACTORS HOLDING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                      CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                        Three Months Ended
                                                             March 30,
Primary                                                 1997           1996
-------                                              ----------     ----------
<S>                                                  <C>            <C>
Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding                                         12,300,000     10,000,000
Common equivalent shares outstanding - options                 0              0
                                                     -----------    -----------
Total common and common equivalent shares             
  outstanding                                         12,300,000     10,000,000
                                                     ===========    ===========
                                                                               
Net income                                             2,319,944      1,903,044
                                                     -----------    -----------

Primary earnings per share                           $      0.19    $      0.19
                                                     ===========    ===========

Fully diluted
-------------

Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding                                         12,300,000     10,000,000
Common equivalent shares outstanding - options           233,978              0
                                                     -----------    -----------
Total common and common equivalent shares
  outstanding                                         12,533,978     10,000,000
                                                     ===========    ===========

Net income                                             2,319,944      1,903,044
                                                     -----------    -----------
Fully diluted earnings per share                     $      0.19    $      0.19
                                                     ===========    ===========

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 28, 2020

No. 04-20-00288-CR

Neil Howard MCGINNIS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6773

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

 On August 26, 2020, we abated this appeal and remanded the cause to the trial court to 

determine, inter alia, whether Appellant wanted court-appointed counsel. As ordered, the trial 

court held a hearing, made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and appointed counsel to 

represent Appellant in this appeal. The trial court clerk and reporter each filed supplemental 

records. 

 We REINSTATE this appeal on this court’s docket. Appellant’s brief is due 

November 23, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of October, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
From: Goehl, Eric

To: "Michael J Hahn"

Subject: RE: NuStar Asphalt facility status

Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:12:00 PM

Thank you Michael.

From: Michael J Hahn [mailto:Michael.Hahn@erm.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:05 PM

To: Goehl, Eric

Cc: Ferris, Janet (Janet.Ferris@nustarasphalt.com); toby.hanna@erm.com

Subject: NuStar Asphalt facility status

Eric,

It was nice speaking with you today. As we discussed, the NuStar Asphalt Refinery in Paulsboro, New

Jersey is an Area Source of HAP emissions.

If you have any questions, please give me a call.

Michael Hahn

ERM

200 Princeton South Corporate Center, Suite 160 

Ewing, NJ 08628

Phone:(609) 895-0050

Direct Dial: (609) 403-7545

Mobile: (267) 207-1778

Fax: (609) 895-0111

 

Please visit ERM's web site: http://www.erm.com