alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Olsen and wife, Respondents, vs. Ortell, by Guardian, Appellant.

*June 4*

July *3, 1953.*

*469For the' appellant there was a brief by *Foley & Foley,*and oral argument by *Rex Capwell, Jr.,*all of Racine.

For the respondents there was a brief and oral argument by *Arthur H. Strochan*of Antigo.

Fairchild, J.

The facts alleged in the respondents’ complaint and admitted by appellant’s demurrer show that Katherine A. Ortell never had and that she does not claim to have an interest adverse to the plaintiffs arising out of the contract which is the basis of this litigation. She was in no sense of *470the word a party to the transaction, and as her husband’s interest or rights under the contract never ripened into an estate of inheritance, his wife, Katherine Ortell, appellant, has no right or claim under the facts here that would make her either a necessary or a proper party to the action for strict foreclosure of a land contract not signed by her.

Appellant’s husband joined with Thomas Burman and Mary J. Burman, his wife, in an agreement to purchase real estate. Under the terms of the contract, the buyers agreed to hold the land as tenants at sufferance, subject to be removed as tenants holding over by process whenever default occurred. The, buyers were in default at the time the action was commenced.

The complaint does contain an allegation that the appellant has or claims to have some lien upon the property. However, because the true facts as in the complaint set forth show she cannot be the beneficiary of any claim arising from a lien, and because, as said in *Inglis v. Fohey,*136 Wis. 28, 33, 116 N. W. 857, with reference to dower of a wife, she “had no inchoate dower right, because her husband had no title, legal or equitable, at the time he made the contract with the plaintiff, but only a mere contract right to purchase,” it would of course follow that the husband’s default could be of no advantage to her. It also follows that the allegation that appellant Katherine A. Ortell has or claims to have a lien on the property is not founded upon fact and cannot be considered as other than a conclusion of law, for “a demurrer to a complaint admits all the facts therein well pleaded, but it does not admit erroneous conclusions drawn from such facts by the pleader even though the conclusions bear the semblance of statements of fact.” *Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. State,*173 Wis. 119, 125, 180 N. W. 138.

Since the husband in this case had only a contractual right based on his individual interest, in a contract, and since he was in default, his wife has no interest arising here out of her *471rights in dower- or otherwise. Thus, the sole question presented on this appeal, whether a wife may be joined with her husband as a party defendant in an action for strict foreclosure of a land contract not signed by her, no title having matured in her husband’s favor, must be answered in the negative.

*By the Court.*— Order reversed and cause remanded.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23 - 0063

_________________ JOE LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEAN SKINNER,

Defendant and Appellee. CHRIS SKINNER,

Defendant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Joe Lee, to all counsel of r ecor d , and to the Honorable David J. Grubich , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 30 2023

08/30/2023
Case Number: DA 23-0063
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




In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Xinde Technology Company (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
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 operation of the Company.




Date:
      May 17, 2010
              By:
              /s/Dianjun
      LiuName:
              Dianjun
      LiuTitle:
              President,
      Chief Executive Officer and PrincipalExecutive
      Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authentications, 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 Xinde Technology Company will be retained
by Xinde Technology Company and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


32.1
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4431

_____________________________
M ARK A LLEN B IR ,
Petitioner
,

v.

F LORIDA D EPARTMENT OF C ORRECTIONS , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

— Original Jurisdiction

.

September 26, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

W ETHERELL , B ILBREY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timel y and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Mark Allen Bir, pro se
, Petitioner

. Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Eric Salvatore Giunta, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
#### UWANICH v. STATE.

No. 18789.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 3, 1937.

Currie McCutcheon, of Dallas, and Car-lilse & Henry, of Kaufman, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The appellant was charged, tried, and convicted as a juvenile delinquent; penalty assessed at confinement in the State Juvenile Training School for Girls for a term of five years.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. However, in the absence of the statement of facts or bills of exception, we have observed but one matter which may be considered, and that is the averment of the appellant that she will reach her majority before the expiration of the term of the sentence and that it is not competent for the state to imprison an adult under a judgment condemning her as a juvenile. The question seems to be satisfactorily disposed of in the sentence which contains a statement to the effect that the appellant shall be confined in the State Juvenile Training School at Gainesville for a term of not less than two nor more than five years in accordance with the provisions of the law governing the state training schools for juveniles. In the sentence is found the following statement:

“Provided, however, the defendant shall not be required to serve or remain in said institution after she shall have reached the age of twenty one (21) years.”

Perceiving nothing in the record which would warrant a reversal or require fur-^her discussion, the judgment is affirmed.
S. 293

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to convey certain lands in

San Juan County, New Mexico, to San Juan College.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. OLD JICARILLA ADMINISTRATIVE SITE.

(a) CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY.—Not later than one year after

the date of completion of the survey referred to in subsection

(b), the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to San Juan College,

in Farmington, New Mexico, subject to the terms, conditions, and

reservations under subsection (c), all right, title, and interest of

the United States in and to a parcel of real property (including

any improvements on the land) not to exceed 20 acres known

as the ‘‘Old Jicarilla Site’’ located in San Juan County, New Mexico

(T29N; R5W; portions of sections 29 and 30).

(b) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—The exact acreage and legal

description of the real property conveyed under subsection (a) shall

be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary of the

Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, and the President of San Juan

College. The cost of the survey shall be borne by San Juan College.

(c) TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND RESERVATIONS.—

(1) Notwithstanding exceptions of application under the

Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U.S.C. 869(c)), consideration for the conveyance described in subsection (a) shall be—

(A) an amount that is consistent with the Bureau

of Land Management special pricing program for Governmental entities under the Recreation and Public Purposes

Act; and

(B) an agreement between the Secretaries of the

Interior and Agriculture and San Juan College indemnifying the Government of the United States from all

liability of the Government that arises from the property.

(2) The lands conveyed by this Act shall be used for educational and recreational purposes. If such lands cease to be

used for such purposes, at the option of the United States,

such lands will revert to the United States.

(3) The Secretary of Agriculture shall identify any reservations of rights-of-way for ingress, egress, and utilities as the

Secretary deems appropriate.

(4) The conveyance described in subsection (a) shall be

subject to valid existing rights.
S. 293—2

(d) LAND WITHDRAWALS.—Public Land Order 3443, only insofar

as it pertains to lands described in subsections (a) and (b), shall

be revoked simultaneous with the conveyance of the property under

subsection (a).

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# C_2012187EN.01000201.xml

| 27.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/2

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 21 June 2012

appointing the members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for Luxembourg

2012/C 187/03

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2062/94 of 18 July 1994 establishing a European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (1), and in particular Article 8 thereof,

1

Having regard to the list of nominations for appointment submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States and by the employers' and the employees' organisations,

Having regard to the lists of members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work,

Whereas:

| (1) | By Decisions of 22 November 2010 (2), 7 March 2011 (3), 21 March 2011 (4) and 18 July 2011 (5), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the period from 8 November 2010 to 7 November 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By Decisions of 22 November 2010 (2), 7 March 2011 (3), 21 March 2011 (4) and 18 July 2011 (5), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the period from 8 November 2010 to 7 November 2013.

2

3

4

5

| (2) | The Government of Luxembourg has submitted nominations for a number of posts to be filled, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Government of Luxembourg has submitted nominations for a number of posts to be filled,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following shall be appointed members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 7 November 2013:

GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES

| Country | Members | Alternate members |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Luxembourg | Mr Paul WEBER | Mr Robert HUBERTY |

Country

Members

Alternate members

Luxembourg

Mr Paul WEBER

Mr Robert HUBERTY

Article 2

The Council will appoint the members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 21 June 2012.

For the Council

The President

M. FREDERIKSEN

---

(1)  OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 322, 27.11.2010, p. 3.

2

(3)  OJ C 83, 17.3.2011, p. 2.

3

(4)  OJ C 92, 24.3.2011, p. 8.

4

(5)  OJ C 217, 23.7.2011, p. 27.

5

---
#### Burrows, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and another, Respondents.

*October 13*

November *14, 1944.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *O’Melia & Kaye*of Rhinelander, and oral argument by *Walter F. Kaye.*

*153For the respondent Industrial Commission there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Levitan.*

For the respondents Rhinelander Paper Company and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company there was a brief by *La France & Edwards,*attorneys, and *Alfred E. La France*of counsel, all of Racine, and oral argument by *Mr. La France.*

Fowler, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane county, confirming an award to the mother of an eighteen-year-old employee of the Rhinelander Paper Company who died as the result of an injury sustained in course of employment. The award was of $1,200 for partial dependency. The claim was for an award to a parent wholly dependent.' The appeal is from the judgment because it denies compensation to the applicant as one wholly dependent. Sec. 102.48, Stats., fixes the award to an unestranged surviving parent, as is the instant applicant, in case of an accident proximately causing death, as did the instant accident, at the amount above stated.

The son was living with his mother in a house owned by her. He paid her $50 a month' — one half of his wages. The applicant rented the upper story of the house for $30 a month and a garage in connection for $6 a month, thus giving her a gross income of $432 a year. Her payments for taxes, interest on a mortgage, insurance, heat, water, and repairs aggregated $481, thus exceeding the income by about $49. But the first part of the lower story of the house had been rented previous to the boy’s employment for $420 to $480 a year, while she and the son had occupied two back rooms of the first floor. The house thus furnished the mother with shelter, a considerable part of living cost, and was capable of furnishing her besides with a net income of about $400 a year. The son’s payment of $50 a month did not go wholly to the mother’s support. It included his board, lodging, and laundry, which the applicant valued at $7 a week, thus leaving only $20 *154a month to go to the support of the mother, which was obviously insufficient to support her wholly.

It is thus apparent that the commission’s finding of only partial support is supported by the' evidence and could not be overthrown by the circuit court. There is no middle ground. Dependency is either partial or total. To be total the applicant must be wholly and solely dependent. *Krueger v. Industrial Comm.*(1941) 237 Wis. 158, 162, 295 N. W. 33; *Larkin v. Smith*(1944), — Md. —, 37 Atl. (2d) 340, 343.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. '
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# 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:*                         October 18, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 417 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-780, K2024-73.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-24002 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 32.1 - President Certification (Section 906)

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


I am the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
EZJR, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company").  I am delivering this
certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011 and filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("Form 10-Q").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my
knowledge, the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


   /s/ T J Jesky
----------------------------------
       T J Jesky
Its:   Principal Executive Officer
       Principal Financial Officer



Date  May 20, 2011
      ------------

<PAGE>
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 2056

GILDETE JOSE CUNHA

,

Petitioner

,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR , Attorney General

, Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an O rder of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : March 28, 2019 Decided: April 24, 2019

Before KING and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion

.

Pablo Cabrera, CABRERA & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Apopka, Florida, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matthew A. Spurlock, Office of Immigration Litigation

, Civil Division, UNITED STATES D EPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Gildete Jose Cunha, a native and citizen of Brazil

, petitions for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration

judge’s denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. * We

have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Cunha’s merits hearing

and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a

ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)

(2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. See Dankam v.

Gonzales , 495 F.3d 113, 1 24 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the

Board. See In re Cunha (B.I.A. Aug. 13, 2018). We dismiss the petition as to Cunha’s

claim that the immigration judge conducted his hearing in a manner that violated his right

to due process on the ground that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before

the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638 (4th

Cir. 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART

* Cunha does not challenge the denial of h is request s for asylum and withholding of removal and has therefore waived appellate review as to these claims

. See Suarez

Valenzuela v. Holder

, 714 F.3d 241, 248

- 49 (4th Cir. 20 13).
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

This Amendment to the Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”), effective as of August 1, 2010, by and between Ampio
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and David Bar-Or, M.D. (the “Executive”) is made as of August 11, 2014 (“Amendment Date”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive (together the “Parties”) entered into the Employment Agreement; 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to extend the term of the Employment Agreement through July 31, 2015; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to modify the Employment Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: 

1. The first sentence of Section 1 of the Employment Agreement shall be replaced in its entirety with the following sentence: 

“The Company hereby agrees to employ Employee and Employee hereby accepts such employment with the Company for the period of 60 months
beginning on the Effective Date.” 
 2. All other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

3. In connection with the Amendment and subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee of the Company, the Company hereby agrees to
grant to the Executive an option to purchase 300,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock, 150,000 shares of which will vest on the date of grant and 150,000 shares of which will vest on the July 31, 2015. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby have executed this Amendment as of the Amendment Date written above. 

 

			
	AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Philip H. Coelho

	Its:	 	Chairman of the Compensation Committee
	
	DAVID BAR-OR, M.D.
	
	 /s/ David Bar-Or

	David Bar-Or, M.D.