alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LOGAN N. WILSON *vs.*RACHEL PHARR.

Upon a plea “ since the last continuance,” pleaded in apt' time, and found to be true, the plaintiff, under the Statute of 1836, (Rev. Stat. chap. 31, sec. 79,) must pay the whole costs of the suit.

ActioN of assumpsit, tried before Manly Judge, Spring Term, 1855, of Cabarrus Superior Court.

The case at first stood on the plea of “non assumpsit.”

At this term the defendant pleaded further, *“ aeeord and satisfaction since the last continuance?*which plea the plaintiffs admitted to be true.

There were cross motions for the taxation of costs, but his Honor being of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to costs, up to the time of entering the plea since the last continuance, gave judgment against the defendant, from which he appealed.

*Ho Counsel*appeared for the plaintiff.

*Guión,*for the defendant.

*452Nash, C. J.

In the judgment below, there is error. By the 79th section of the Act of 1836, Bev. Stat. ch. 31, it is enacted: “ the party in whose favor judgment shall be given, *or in oase of a non*suit, dismission or discontinuance, the defendant shall be entitled to full costs, unless where it is or may be otherwise directed by Statute.” ¥e know of no subsequent Act altering this general provision, except in special cases.

In this case, the defendant, after the cause had been put to issue, pleaded, *since the last*continuance, *accord and satisfaction■,*which was admitted by the plaintiff, and a judgment of non suit was rendered against him.

Ohitty, in his work on pleading, vol. 1, pages 638 & ’9, says, that a plea since the last continuance is a matter of right, if pleaded in apt time. If not so pleaded, its admission is a matter of discretion with the Court, to be granted on such terms as it may deem proper. Here the plea was offered in ■apt time, and upon its reception, judgment of nonsuit was rendered against the plaintiff. It is brought precisely under the restriction of the Act referred to. The question of costs in this State is regulated by Statute. In the case of *Gubbs*v. *Ellis,*2 Car. L. Rep. 612, see also *Morgan*v. Cone, 1 Dev. and Bat. 234, where this point is also decided. In the first, the plaintiff, during the pendency of the suit, took possession of the premises in question, which being pleaded since the last continuance, *“*the Court held, the costs must necessarily be paid by the plaintiff, whose entry on the premises has destroyed the effect of his writ.” In this case, the accord and receiving satisfaction, since the last continuance, by the plaintiff, destroyed the effect of his writ, and he could not recover an\ judgment against the defendant for the debt claimed.

Pee Cueiam. Judgment below, in favor of the plaintiff, for his costs, is reversed, and judgment rendered for the defendant to recover his costs against the plaintiff.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AS OF MARCH 31, 1998
AND 1997 AND FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIODS THEN ENDED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,374
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,120
<ALLOWANCES>                                       937
<INVENTORY>                                     41,276
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,468
<PP&E>                                       1,253,620
<DEPRECIATION>                                 421,918
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 978,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          128,554
<BONDS>                                        255,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           284
<OTHER-SE>                                     180,879
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   978,470
<SALES>                                        214,822
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               214,822
<CGS>                                          193,828
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  196,967
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,139
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,806
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,665
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,141
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  6,637
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,504
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED    SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                               JUNE 30,             JUNE 30,
                                        -------------------  --------------------
 
                                            1997      1996      1997       1996
                                        ---------  --------  ---------  ---------
 
<S>                                       <C>       <C>       <C>        <C>
        Net loss........................  $(7,510)  $(6,659)  $(48,654)  $(13,526)
                                          =======   =======   ========   ========
 
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF 
SHARES OUTSTANDING
 
        Weighted average common shares
         outstanding....................   30,684    17,528     29,922     13,476
        Shares to be issued
         (other equity)................       644         -        537          -
        Weighted average shares to
         reflect common stock options
         issued after March 31, 1996,
         pursuant to the treasury stock
         method.........................        -     2,068          -      2,844
        Weighted average shares to
         reflect the conversion of
         Series A, B and C Preferred
         Stock..........................        -     7,678          -     10,557
                                           ------    ------     ------     ------
        Pro forma weighted average
         number of common and common
         equivalent shares outstanding..   31,328    27,274     30,459     26,877
                                           ======    ======     ======     ======

        Pro forma net loss per common                                             
         and common equivalent share....  $ (0.24)   $(0.24)  $  (1.60)    $(0.50)
                                          =======    ======   ========     ====== 
                                        
 
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

 

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Enacted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

 

 

First Energy Metals Limited (the “Company”) isfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal yearended March 31, 2017 (the “Report”).

 

I, Ernest Peters, President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(i)  the Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)  the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

 

 

January 10, 2018
#### Leslee Travel Inc., Doing Business as Empress Travel, Plaintiff, v American Coupon Exchange, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County,

February 23, 1988

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Gruen, Muskin & Thau*for defendants. *Seymour Ostrow*for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Seymour Schwartz, J.

Plaintiff, Leslee Travel, Inc. (Leslee), originally moved to confirm an ex parte order of attachment issued against defendant, American Coupon Exchange, Inc. (ACE), which was previously granted on the grounds that ACE was a foreign corporation not authorized to do business in New York. ACE cross-moves pursuant to CPLR 6212 (e) to vacate the order of attachment and for an inquest on damages. At oral argument Leslee consented to vacate the attachment.

The ex parte application for an order of attachment was *902submitted by Leslee on December 4, 1987 and was signed on December 23, 1987. Meanwhile, on December 15, 1987, ACE obtained authorization to do business in New York. ACE did not notify Leslee it had obtained authorization to do business prior to execution of the attachment on its bank account.

CPLR 6212 (e) provides that plaintiff shall be liable for all costs and damages "if the defendant recovers judgment, or if it is finally decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to an attachment of the defendant’s property.”

Here attachment was clearly warranted when the ex parte order was applied for. When ACE obtained authorization to do business that ground fell.

The issue is whether Leslee is liable under CPLR 6212 (e) when ACE’s certificate to do business was obtained in the 19-day interval between the submission of the ex parte order and its approval by the court. To sustain such a holding, Leslee’s attorney would be obligated to check with the Secretary of State each day to discover if there were a change in ACE’s status which would undermine the basis for the attachment. Such a burden is patently unreasonable. Quite apart, if the court had signed the ex parte order between December 4 and December 14 — a 10-day period — this issue would not even arise. CPLR 6212 (e) is not meant to cover the situation where the ex parte application is proper and its signing is not within Leslee’s control. Vacatur of attachment for a "technical reason”, other than that plaintiff was not entitled to attachment, does not give rise to liability for damages under the statute. (McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C6212:3, at 71-72.)

The cross motion is denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1


On or about August 8, 2001, Mr. Mikus entered into an oral promissory note
arrangement in favor of the Company in the aggregate amount of $4,500. Under the
terms of the arrangement, interest did not accrue and the entire outstanding
balance was due and payable in one lump sum on or before September 7, 2001. On
or about September 4, 2001, the Company amended the arrangement and extended the
maturity date to September 10, 2001. On September 10, 2001, Mr. Mikus repaid the
entire outstanding balance under this arrangement.

On or about July 24, 2001, Mr. Mikus entered into an oral promissory note
arrangement in favor of the Company in the aggregate amount of $18,000. Under
the terms of the arrangement, interest did not accrue and the entire outstanding
balance was due and payable in one lump sum on or before August 27, 2001. On or
about August 22, 2001, the Company amended the arrangement and extended the
maturity date to September 10, 2001. On September 10, 2001, Mr. Mikus repaid the
entire outstanding balance under this arrangement.
#### Town of Sheboygan, Appellant, vs. City of Sheboygan, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Patrick J. McCaffrey*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Edward C. Schmidt,*city attorney.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of TheCorporate Executive Board Company of our reports dated February 23, 2007, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of The Corporate Executive Board Company, TheCorporate Executive Board Company management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of TheCorporate Executive Board Company, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2006:**Registration Statements on Form S-3:**   **Registration**  **Number** **Date Filed**333-55864 February 20, 2001333-82642 February 21, 2002333-113218 March 15, 2004**Registration Statements on Form S-8:**          **Name** **Registration Number**  **Date Filed** Amended Directors’ Stock Plan  333-74145  March 9, 19991999 Stock Option Plan  333-74145  March 9, 1999Employee Stock Purchase Plan  333-39832  June 22, 20002001 Stock Option Plan  333-67238  August 10, 20012002 Non-Executive Stock Incentive Plan  333-103538  February 28, 20032004 Stock Incentive Plan  333-117774  July 30, 2004Deferred Compensation Plan  333-138685  November 14, 2006                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLPBaltimore, Maryland
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3153

To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to convey certain excess personal

property of the Air Force to Roosevelt General Hospital, Portales, New

Mexico.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 3 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. DOMENICI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to convey certain

excess personal property of the Air Force to Roosevelt

General Hospital, Portales, New Mexico.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF AIR FORCE PROPERTY TO

4 ROOSEVELT GENERAL HOSPITAL, PORTALES,

5 NEW MEXICO.

6 (a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the Air Force is

7 authorized to convey to the Roosevelt General Hospital,

8 Portales, New Mexico, without consideration, and without

9 regard to title II of the Federal Property and Administra-
2

•S 3153 IS

1 tive Services Act of 1949, all right, title, and interest of

2 the United States in any personal property of the Air

3 Force that the Secretary determines—

4 (1) is appropriate for use by the Roosevelt Gen5 eral Hospital in the operation of that hospital; and

6 (2) is excess to the needs of the Air Force.

7 (b) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The

8 Secretary may require any additional terms and conditions

9 in connection with any conveyance under subsection (a)

10 that the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the in11 terests of the United States.

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION
OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, James J. McGonigle, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of The Corporate Executive Board Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of The Corporate Executive Board Company. Date: February 28, 2005/s/ James J. McGonigleJames J. McGonigle
Chairman of the Board of Directors
and Chief Executive Officer  I, Timothy R. Yost, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
The Corporate Executive Board Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of The Corporate Executive Board Company. Date: February 28, 2005/s/ Timothy R. YostTimothy R. Yost
Chief Financial Officer
ex10-2.htm



Exhibit 10.2




 







343 Sui Zhou Zhong Road, Suining, Sichuan Province, P.R. China












Mr. Jiayin Wang


Suining, Sichuan Province


People’s Republic of China


September 29, 2010







Dear Mr. Weihai Liu:







It is a pleasure to offer you the position of Chief Financial Officer for China Health Resource, Inc. (“CHRI” or the “Company”) reporting to the Board of Directors.







Salary


You will receive an annual base salary of RMB 80,000, (approximately US $11,941). You will be eligible to participate periodic stock grants and incentive plans for which you are eligible.  In addition, you will participate in all of the Company’s employee benefits, benefit plans and programs for which you are eligible pursuant to their terms.







We are all excited about the opportunity to work under your leadership.












Sincerely,







/s/ Jiayin Wang


Jiayin Wang, Chief Executive Officer


China Health Resource, Inc.

















I accept the above terms of employment as stated:













	
/s/ Weihai Liu

	  	
September 29, 2010


	
Weihai Liu

	  	
Date

















Approved by Company


(Following receipt of signed acceptance by employee)













	
/s/ Jiayin Wang

	  	
September 29, 2010


	
Jiayin Wang, Chief Executive Officer

	  	
Date
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87653-87654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25678]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 7, 2024.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website 
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has 
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the 
following topics:

[[Page 87654]]

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of 
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information, please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: October 31, 2024.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-25678 Filed 10-31-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
TYRECE LYNN COX

NO.

IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

APPELLANT,

vs. MAR 09 2015

STATE OF TEXAS.

APPELLEE.

APPELLANTS MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE

A PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

1. Appellant's has been informed that his appeal has been aflBrmed and mandate has been

issued on February 12, 2015 in the First Court ofAppeal bearing cause number 01-13-

00565-CR.

2. The gist of the Appellant's motion is that he is withoutthe necessary tools to perfect

his PDR such as court records ofthe proceedings and it would be impossible for the FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Appellant to have hisPDRsubmitted within the mandatory thirty(30) days.

3. Appellant counters that no party or partyin interest wouldbe prejudiced by this

Abel Acosta, Clerk

Motion and that the interest ofjustice so require that this court extend the time to

allow the Appellant to seek from the District Court or former counsel courtrecords

to perfect the PDR.

WHEREFORE PREMISE CONSIDERED, Appellant pray that this motion be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Tyrece Lynn Cox

#01857602

1391 FM 3328

Tennessee Colony, Texas 75880

RECEIVED IN
?.

CERTTFJCATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing wasmailed this 5th day ofMarch 2015 postage

prepaid by placing same in mail and copy mailed to the Clerk ofthe Court ofthe Texas

Court ofCriminal Appeals and the Office ofthe District Attorney Galveston County

located at 600 59th Street, Ste. 1001, Galveston, Texas 77551

Tyrece Lynn Cox
0!

<b

* 153

0

I

1 u

I ^

II ^

t

.ft

i

c

3

1J

M

SS)

A

Is

r

)

*

0

S3

^

ri:S2

.ii S 2'

rs" o ft

r- ft

%