alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State v. Arns.

1. Appeal: when it does not lie. In a bastardy pioeeeding, the defendant attached to his answer certain interrogatories to be answered by the mother of the child. The court sustained exceptions to the interrogatories on the ground that the mother was not a party to the action in such sense as to require her to answer them. *Held*that an appeal would not lie from such ruling of the court, it not being such an order as is contemplated by § 3164 of the Code. *(Richards v. Burden,*31 Iowa, 305, followed in principle.)

*Appeal from Bremer District Oourt*— Hon. Gr. W. Ruddiok, *Judge.*

Wednesday, October 12.

This is a proceeding in bastardy, in which the defendant is charged with the paternity of a child of which it is alleged one Mary Arns is pregnant. The defendant, by his answer, denied being the father of the child, and he attached to his answer certain interrogatories propounded to Mary Arns, and demanded that she be required to answer the same. These interrogatories related to the number of times and the place and date of the sexual intercourse by which the child was begotten. The plaintiff’s counsel filed exception to the interrogatories, one ground of which was that Mary Arns was not a party to the proceeding in such a sense as to require her to answer the interrogatories. The court sustained the exceptions upon the ground above stated, and the cause was continued to the next term of court. The defendant appeals.

*M. E.*Billings, for appellant.

*W. 8. K'ingsley,*for appellee.

*556Rothrock, J.

An appeal from the order made in this case is not authorized by law. Section 3164 of the Code provides that an appeal may be taken from the following orders: (1) An order made affecting a substantial right in an action, when such order, in effect, determines the action, and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken ; (2) a final order made in special proceedings, affecting a substantial right therein, or made on a summary application in an action after judgment * * It is apparent that the order made in this case does not come within either *of*the above provisions of the statute. The ruling made was a decision upon the right of the defendant to compel Mary Arns to answer questions, the answers to be used as evidence in the trial of the case. There is no appeal from rulings of this character. This was long ago determined by this court. *Richards v. Burden,*31 Iowa, 305. It is unnecessary to do more than cite the case. It is in principle precisely to the point. The appeal must be

Dismissed.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 78

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the gift tax

exclusion to $25,000.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. ROBERTS, and Mr. HELMS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase

the gift tax exclusion to $25,000.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN GIFT TAX EXCLUSION.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2503(b) of the Internal

5 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exclusions from gifts)

6 is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘$10,000’’ each place it appears

8 and inserting ‘‘$25,000’’,

9 (2) by striking ‘‘1998’’ in paragraph (2) and in10 serting ‘‘2000’’, and
2

•S 78 IS

1 (3) by striking ‘‘1997’’ in paragraph (2)(B) and

2 inserting ‘‘1999’’.

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

4 this section shall apply to gifts made after December 31,

5 1999.

Æ
EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                       State or Other
                                                                       Jurisdiction of           Percentage
                                                                       Incorporation             Ownership
                                                                       ---------------           ----------
<S>                                                                    <C>                         <C>
Parent
------

CFS Bancshares, Inc.                                                   Delaware                    N/A


Subsidiary (1)
----------

Citizens Federal Savings Bank                                          United States               100%


Subsidiaries of Citizens Federal Savings Bank (1)
---------------------------------------------

Citizens Service Corporation                                           Alabama                     100%

<FN>
__________
(1)   The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in
      the consolidated  financial  statements  contained in the Annual Report to
      Stockholders attached hereto as Exhibit 13.
</FN>
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 161 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2242-E2243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    TRIBUTE TO SGT. RICHARD E. REYES

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. JIM COSTA

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 3, 2008

  Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a true patriot 
serving in our military, Sergeant Richard E. Reyes. Sgt. Reyes serves 
proudly in the United States Marine Corps, and hails from Sanger, 
California. He has recently been named the USO Service Marine of the 
Year, and I want to send my sincere congratulations.
  Sgt. Reyes served as team leader with Company C, 1st Reconnaissance 
Battalion, Regimental Combat Team 6, which is stationed in Iraq. While 
serving in the Persian Gulf, Sgt. Reyes led his team on 70 combat 
missions and was instrumental in the capture of over 35 insurgents. 
During combat operations in July 2007, his platoon's base came under 
enemy attack with small arms and machinegun fire. Located just 250 
meters from the ambush, Sgt. Reyes maneuvered onto a nearby rooftop, 
identified the insurgents, and relayed the enemy's location to the 
platoon commander.
  He was still undetected by the enemy, and he and his team engaged the 
insurgent group with high explosive rounds, which reduced enemy fire on 
the base, but exposed his position on the rooftop. Sgt. Reyes was 
determined to end this engagement, which had been going on for 45 
minutes. He then moved his team onto another rooftop and single-
handedly directed attacks by U.S. jets and helicopters. After several 
attempts, the enemy's position was destroyed.
  Just 3 days later, Sgt. Reyes again demonstrated superb leadership 
and courage when he engaged an insurgent from the rooftop of his 
platoon's base and directed a counter-attack. During the firefight, 
Sgt. Reyes and his team maintained their position and coordinated a 
diversion using artillery smoke. As a result of his initiative, 
perseverance, and dedication to duty, an additional two insurgents were 
captured in this engagement.
  Sgt. Reyes is a Sanger High School graduate, and while he was there, 
he was a three sport athlete. He played for his school's water polo 
team in the fall, he wrestled in the winter, and swam in the spring. 
Following graduation, he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps at 
age 17. Sgt. Reyes is the son of Rosa and Gustavo Reyes, and he has two 
brothers and two sisters.
  On behalf of all my colleagues in the House and Senate, I would like 
to congratulate Sgt. Richard Reyes for being named the USO

[[Page E2243]]

Service Marine of the Year, and thank him for his bravery on the 
battlefield. He truly exemplifies the courageous service of our men and 
women in uniform, and especially our United States Marines.

                          ____________________
```
#### HENRY D. ROBERTSON v. JOHN F. PICKERELL.

*Statute of Limitations.*

The statute of limitations begins to run from the time that the cause of action accrues; Therefore, where the plaintiff made a contract with the defendant to do certain work which was “to be measured, estimated and paid for monthly *Held,*that the statute began to run at the end'of' each month.

' Civil AotioN, tried at Spring Term, 1877, of Halifax Superior Court, before Buxton, *J.*

The defendant contracted to build the Williamston and Tarhoro Railroad, and employed the plaintiff, who performed labor and furnished materials in the construction of the same under a contract with the defendant. This action was-brought on the 4th of October, 1873, to recover the amount-due, and-was referred to Thos. N. Hill, Esq., who submitted a report deciding the issues in favor of the plaintiff and giving judgment for the sum demanded: The Referee stated among other things, that no evidence of the amount and price of work done each month by the plaintiff was submitted to him, except the estimate for February 1,1870, calling for $1103.36, and the estimate for July 1, 1870, calling-for $1696.57. As conclusions of law he found that the plea-of the statute of limitations was not available as a defence-to this action, inasmuch as the contract between the parties» was entire,, and that the statute began to run only from the time the work was completed, which was January 1, 1871.

To this report the defendant filed several exceptions, but relied on the third and fourth, to wit; 3. For that the Referee finds as a conclusion of law that said alleged contract was entire, and not divisible, whereas the evidence was that the work was to be measured, estimated and paid for month-*303]y; 4. Eor that the Referee finds that the plaintiff is not barred by the statute of limitations.

His Honor overruled the exceptions and sustained the report. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.

*Messrs. Mullen £ Moore*and *Walter Clark,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Conigland §*Burton, *Moore £*Gatling, and *J. B.. Batchelor,*for defendant.

Reads J.

It is settled that where there is a running account, all on one side, the statute of limitations begins to run on each item from its date ; but where there are mutual accounts, the statute begins to run only from the last dealing-between the parties. In regard to other matters the rule is,, that the statute begins to run from the time when the cause of action accrued.

¥e are of the opinion that in this case a cause of action accrued to the plaintiff at the end of each month for the-amount due for that month, and that three years from that’ date it was barred. ■ -

It follows that only such amount is now due the plaintiff, as accrued within three years immediately preceding the commencement of the action.

.We have no data by which, to fix the amount, else we would enter judgment her'e. We must therefore declare that there is error, and remand the case to be proceeded in as the parties may be advised.

Per CuriaM. Reversed and remanded.
oxysure_ex10281.htm


 


EXHIBIT 10.28.1




 


 


MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT







WHEREAS, OxySure Systems, Inc. (“OxySure”) and the TONY & JUDY ALCEDO FAMILY TRUST (“Alcedo”) (OxySure and Alcedo jointly, the “Parties”) entered into that certain Note Purchase Agreement (“Note”) dated 12/10/09 in the principal amount of $100,000; and







WHEREAS, The Parties have agreed that it is in their best interests to modify the terms of the Note.







NOW, WHEREFORE, FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE SUFFICIENCY OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:







Section 1 of Exhibit A to the Note Purchase Agreement shall be amended as follows:







Maturity Date.  The then outstanding Principal Amount, together with accrued and unpaid interest thereon as set forth above, or the Optional Conversion Shares (as provided for herein) as the case may be, shall become due on the 360th Day subsequent to the Issue Date (the "Maturity Date"). "Issue Date" means the date of first issuance of this Note as first set forth above.







All other provisions of the Note shall remain unchanged.







Agreed to and accepted:


 




	 	 	 	 	 
	
By: /s/ Tony Alcedo

	 	 	
By: /s/ Julian Ross  

	 
	
Mr. Anthony M. Alcedo, Trustee 

	 	 	
Mr. Julian Ross, CEO

	 
	The Tony & Judy Alcedo 	 	 	
OxySure Systems, Inc.

	 
	Family Trust	 	 	 	 
	Date: September 1, 2010    	 	 	Date:  9/01/2010
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 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. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Robert F. Woods, Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of IKON Office Solutions, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the Report) that:



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



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



Date: July 8, 2005



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                 
|/s/ ROBERT F. WOODS                                              
|Robert F. Woods Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawtharne Street 

San Francisco, Ca. 94105 

November 30, 1993 

Edward Z. Fox 

Director 

Arizona Department of Environmental - Quality 

3033 North Central Avenue 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Dear Mr. Fox: 

On June 14,1993, you submitted a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan 

for achieving and maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate 

matter 10 microns or less in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) in the Nogales nonattainment 

area. 

We have revikwed this package for completeness and found that it conforms to the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 5 1, Appendix V. The complete submittal addresses 

the finding of nonsubmittal made by EPA on December 16, 1991, and thus stops the clock 

for mandatory sanctions under section 179(a) of the Clean Air Act. 

The SIP revision found to be complete is now in the process of being reviewed. 

Once reviewed, we will prepare a rulemaking notice for submittal to our Headquarters 

office for publication in the Federal Register. 

If you have any questions regarding our review, please call me or have your staff call 

Wallace Woo, Chief of the Plans Development Section in the Air Planning Branch at 

(4 15)744- 1207. 

Sincerely, 

David P. Howekamp 

Director 

Air & Toxics Division 

cc: Nancy Wrona, Arizona Department 

of Environmental Quality 

Printed on Recycled Paper
#### LEWIS METCALF *vs*JOHN H. ALLEY.

^^ere 4 carried on a suit in the name of B without or against the consent ^16 latter> whereby B was compelled to pay costs, B may maintain an action on the case against A, to recover damages far the injury he has thus sustained.

This was an action on the ease tried at September Term, 1840, of Rutherford Superior Court of Law, before his Honor Judge Bailey. The facts appeared to be these; A suit was instituted in the County Court of Rutherford in the name of Lewis Metcalf and John Bradley against one Claton Brown. When the suit was called *Brown’s*counsel moved to dismiss it, because no bond had been given for its prosecution. The Court directed that Metcalf be called, (the other plaintiff, Bradley, having left the State,) and he was informed of the motion to dismiss the suit. Metcalf then declared to the Court that he had nothing to do with the suit — that he had not authorized the suit to be brought, and he desired that it should be dismissed. The present defendant, John H. Alley, then in Court, said he opposed the dismission of the suit, and desired it to be carried on, that *John Bradley was in Court,*and that he was ready to give security for the costs. Alley then gave a bond, signed John Bradley’s name by'himself as agent, and also signed as security. The bond was received by the Court, and the cause continued. At a subse- . quent Term of the Court, the cause was submitted to a Jury, and a verdict returned for Brown. An execution thereupon issued for the costs, which were collected out of the present plaintiff. The Court instructed the Jury that Metcalf had a right to dismiss the suit, and that, if the present defendant opposed the dismission, and thereby caused the Court to have the cause continued in the name of both, and the plaintiff *39afterwards had the costs’to pay'in consequenceof the wrongful act of the defendant, he, the plaintiff, had a right to maintain this suit, and recover of the defendant the amount of costs incurred in the former suit.

There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

*J. G. Bynum*for the plaintiff.

No counsel appeared for the defendant.

Daniel, J.

It appears that Alley, without authority, caused Metcalf to be joined as a plaintiff in the writ and declaration against Brown. In the progress of that suit, when Metcalf first learned that his name had been used, he came into Court and moved to dismiss it. The motion was opposed by Alley, and at his instance the suit was continued in Court till it was tried, when there was a judgment against the plaintiffs for costs. Bradley being out of the State, Met-calf was forced by execution to pay these costs. It appears to us that the instruction of the Judge, upon these facts appearing in evidence, was correct. The plaintiff had sustained an injury in consequence of the wrongful acts of the defendant; and the appropriate remedy was an action of trespass on the case. The judgment must be affirmed.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. 

# United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 17, 2001 Decided December 3, 2004

No. 01-7029

B RENDA E LAINE M AKINS, APPELLANT

v.

D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA AND F RANCIS J. H ENDERSON, ACTING W ARDEN, D.C. D EPARTMENT OF C ORRECTIONS C ENTRAL F ACILITY, APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (98cv02693)

Gregory L. Lattimer argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant. Carl J. Schifferle , Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Robert J. Bills of costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. The court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out of time.2 Spagnoletti , Attorney General. Edward E. Schwab , Deputy Attorney General, entered an appearance. Before: H ENDERSON , R ANDOLPH , and R OGERS , Circuit Judges

. Opinion for the Court filed P ER C URIAM
. P ER C URIAM : In this appeal from a district court judgment enforcing a settlement agreement, we certified the following question to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals: Under District of Columbia law, is a client bound by a settlement agreement negotiated by her attorney when the client has not given the attorney actual authority to settle the case on those terms but hasauthorized the attorney to attend a settlement conference before a magistrate judge and to negotiate on her behalf and when the attorney leads the opposing party to believe that the client has agreed to those terms? Makins v. Dist. of Columbia , 277 F.3d 544, 553 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The D.C. Court of Appeals, sitting en banc , answered the question in the negative. Makins v. Dist. of Columbia , 2004 WL 2471504 (Nov. 4, 2004). We must therefore set aside the district court’s enforcement of the agreement on thebasis of the attorney’s apparent authority. Further proceedings on remand are needed to resolve the remaining evidentiary dispute about the attorney’s actual authority to settle the case. See277 F.3d at 545-46. Vacated and remanded.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.18
                          THE BANK OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY
                           LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT
                              K-TRON AMERICA, INC.
Date: July 22, 1999

ACCOUNT #6039359-6600                                Maturity Date: July 3, 2001
Original Amount: $ 5,000,000.00                      Annual Fee: $12,500.00
Present Balance: $         0.00

     WHEREAS, the undersigned borrower executed the note referred to above on
June 27, 1998, And,

     WHEREAS, the note, security agreement and commitment letter executed by the
borrower allow a modification of interest rate, due date or other terms or
conditions without affecting the priority of The Bank of Gloucester County's
lien.

     NOW, therefore, in consideration of an annual fee of $12,500.00, the above
referenced note is extended and modified as follows:

     IT IS HEREBY AGREED THAT THE ABOVE NUMBERED NOTE SHALL BECOME DUE JULY 3,
     2001. DURING THE TERMS OF THE RENEWAL, PAYMENTS OF INTEREST ONLY SHALL BE
     DUE EACH MONTH BEGINNING AUGUST 1, 1999 AND SHALL BE APPLIED TO INTEREST
     AND THEN TO PRINCIPAL.

     BORROWER AGREES THAT UNTIL ALL OBLIGATIONS HEREUNDER ARE FULLY PAID AND
     DISCHARGED, BORROWER WILL NOT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE BANK:

          PERMIT THE CONSOLIDATED NET WORTH OF BORROWER, DETERMINED IN
          ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES CONSISTENTLY
          APPLIED, TO BE LESS THAN $7,000,000 AT DECEMBER 31,1999, OR PERMIT THE
          RATIO OF CONSOLIDATED TOTAL LIABILITIES TO CONSOLIDATED NET WORTH TO
          BE MORE THAN 2.50:1 AT DECEMBER 31, 1999.



<PAGE>   2


     All terms and conditions of the original note, commitment letter and any
security thereto attached is fully incorporated herein and fully ratified except
as specifically modified by this modification agreement.


                                           K-TRON AMERICA, INC.

THE BANK OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY               /s/ Kevin C. Bowen           7/30/99
                                           KEVIN C. BOWEN, PRESIDENT/DATE

By: /s/ David J. Hanrahan                   /s/ Patricia M. Moore        7/26/99
      David J. Hanrahan, Sr., VP           PATRICIA M. MOORE/VP/FINANCE/DATE
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,John Adamovich, Jr., Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

The Form 10-K of AeroflexIncorporated for the period ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained insuch report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial   condition and results of operations of AeroflexIncorporated for the periods presented.

 
|        | /s/ JOHN ADAMOVICH, JR.   |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Name: John Adamovich, Jr. |
|   | Date: September 12, 2006  |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Aeroflex Incorporated and will be retained by AeroflexIncorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----