alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State *v.*Joseph & Reuben White.

An indictment for trespass in taking and carrying away negroes out of the possession of one, may be sustained, although it may have been done at the command of the party who had the real title to the property.

indictment for trespass, in taking and carrying away two negroes from and out of the possession and ownership of William BaiJy. After the facts were proven on the part of the State, *Mr. Avery,*on the part of the Defendants, offered to produce several witnesses, to prove that the property of these negroes was in one Samuel Scott, of Sonth-Carolina, and that the Defendants had taken them for him and by his command : but by his Honor Judge Wtiiums, property here is not the question — (he law prescribes a method whereby Scott might have regained the possession of that property if he had a right to it — that is to say, by a civil suit. Such methods of acquiring possession as these Defendants have taken, are in violation of the rules of law, and of evil example to the public *;*and if such kind of evidence should be received, would render property of this kind very insecure: for great numbers of negroes have been brought hither from other States, and they may all be taken and carried away again to other States, if there should be any claimants of them there; and the honest purchaser here would be left almost without a remedy. There was a verdict for the. Slate.

Noth. — Vide *State*v. *Flowers & Hampton,*1 Car, *Law Rep. 97.*— 2 *Murp.*225, *Stale*v. *M'Dowell & Gray, 1 Hawks*449.
#### Diane Steinbuch, Appellant, v Robert Kapell et al., Respondents.

[772 NYS2d 549]

*375In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated November 22, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, (2) from a judgment of the same court dated January 16, 2003, which dismissed the complaint and cancelled her notice of pendency, and (3), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated March 21, 2003, as, upon granting her motion for leave to reargue the defendants’ motion, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 22, 2002, is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated March 21, 2003, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The appeal from the intermediate order dated November 22, 2002, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the intermediate order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment and the order dated March 21, 2003 (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

While the “Memorandum of Agreement” drafted by the defendants and signed by the plaintiff set forth the essential elements of the proposed contract for the sale of the defendants’ house to the plaintiff, there could be no enforceable contract under the statute of frauds unless that document was subscribed by the defendants (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]; *Urgo v Patel,*297 AD2d 376 [2002]; *Bridgeview Dev. Corp. v Hooda Realty,*145 AD2d 457 [1988]). The defendants offered evidence demonstrating that they did not sign the memorandum, and the plaintiff presented no evidence to the contrary sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.
FORMH 

EQUIPMENT LEAKS 

1. Submit a copy of the leak detection and repair procedures lor the PVC product•on facility and provide responses to the questions below. 

2. Refer to "Enclosure 1• 1or additional instructions and details. 

Table 1. LDAR Program 

Is there an equipment leak detection and repair (LOAR) 

program for all equipment at your facility included in the Yes 

source category? 

If "No: how are equipment leaks detected and repaired? 

If "Yes,• is the eauioment sub·ect to the reauirements of: 

40 CFR Part 63. Subpart UU Yes 

40 CFR Part 61. Sub art V No 

Other Federal LDAA Regulation No 

S ecify: 

S1ale LDAR Regula1ion No 

Specify: 

Provide the total cost to your facility for conducting the $135,000 LOAR program at this process unit in 2013: 

Table 2. EQuipment Counts 

Subtotal of Equipment Associated 

Equipment In Source with Closed Vent System(s) 

Category (Subset of count in source 

category) 

Valves 

In aas. va or, and li ht liquid service 3732 54 

In heavy liQuid service 0 0 

Pumps 

In light liquid service 47 0 

In heavy liquid service 0 0 

Connectors 

In aas. va or, and ll:oht Hauid service 11557 236 

In heavy liquid service 0 0 

A ita tors 

In gas. vapor. and li ht Ji uid service 8 0 

In heavy liquid service 0 0 

Pressure Relief Devices 

In oas _ and vaDor service t 18 2 

In liQUid serviCe 32 0 

lnstn..~menta ion systems 130 30 

Compressors 0 0 

Samolina connection svstems 9 0 

Ooen ended valves and lines 750 2 

Page lofl 

DRAFT PVC Section 114 Survey Part 1 

06/23/2009
J-S64011-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

LISA THOMPSON Appellant No. 283 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 16, 2 013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0010016-2012

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and LAZARUS, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED OCTOBER 17, 2014 Lisa Thompson appeals from the judgment of sentenc e imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County after she pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver (PWID), 1 two counts of possession of a controlled substance, 2 and possession of drug paraphernalia. 3 Upon careful review, we dismiss the appeal. On December 16, 2013, Thompson pled guilty to the above-referenced offenses. She waived her right to a pre-sentence i nvestigation, and was

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).

3 35 P.S. § 780-113(a0(32).J-S64011-14

- 2 -

sentenced by the Honorable Kathleen A. Durkin to si xteen to forty months’ incarceration followed by five years’ probation. On appeal, Thompson raises the following issue for our review: Was the sentence imposed manifestly excessive, unre asonable and an abuse of discretion where the court failed t o consider the nature and characteristics of the defendant and her need for rehabilitation before imposing a sentence of total confinement. Brief of Appellant, at 4. Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentenci ng do not entitle an appellant to review as of right. An app ellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his senten ce must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a fo ur-part test: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appe al, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was pr operly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconside r and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whet her there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed fro m is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). Commonwealth v. Allen , 24 A.3d 1058, 1064 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations omitted). We have carefully reviewed the record, including t he transcript of the December 16, 2013 guilty plea/sentencing hearing. Because Thompson did not preserve her challenge to the discretionary asp ects of sentence at the hearing or in a motion for reconsideration, we are precluded from reviewing

her claim. See Allen, supra

. Appeal dismissed.J-S64011-14

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/17/2014
----

(2004/C 65 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0637/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject:   Reception conditions for asylum-seekers

The English High Court ruled on 19 February 2002 that the application of section 55(1) of the UK Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. This provision allows the UK Government automatically to refuse food and shelter to an asylum-seeker who has not made their asylum claim ‘as soon as reasonably practical’. The court ruled that refusing food and shelter is a breach of the applicant's human rights and the ban on inhumane and degrading treatment if it poses a real risk of destitution and injury to the asylum- seeker's health.

Since the wording in the UK Act is the same as in Article 16(2) of Council Directive 2003/9/EC (1) laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers, the risk may be that other Member States might fall foul of the ECHR if they also impose an automatic denial of benefit on delayed claims. Given the interest in a uniform application of EU law, will the Commission ensure that all Member States follow the guidance that this English judgment offers so that asylum-seekers are not left destitute?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 Avril 2003)

Following a ruling by the English High Court, the Honourable Member has requested clarification from the Commission about the implementation of Article 16(2) of Council Directive 2003/9/EC laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (2).

The Commission has no competence to intervene in matters for which Community legislation has not yet entered into force. The provisions of this Directive still need to be transposed by the Member States. The deadline for transposition is 6 February 2005.

The Honourable Member is undoubtedly aware of the fact that the Home Secretary appealed the decision of the High Court and that the Court of Appeals has rendered its judgement.

A preliminary reading would suggest that this ruling follows the same lines as the principles laid down in the Directive.

The Directive provides for the possibility to refuse conditions in cases where an asylum seeker has failed to demonstrate that the asylum claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival in a Member State. It also requires that decisions to refuse conditions shall be taken individually, objectively and impartially and reasons shall be given. Moreover, the Directive provides that such decisions shall be based on the particular situation of the person concerned, especially with regard to certain categories of vulnerable persons and it ensures that such decisions may be the subject of an appeal.

----

(1)OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18.

(2)OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18.

----
Exhibit
10.7


 


RITE
AID CORPORATION


 


2010
OMNIBUS EQUITY PLAN


 


AMENDMENT
NO. I


 


WHEREAS, Rite Aid
Corporation (the “Company”) has established the Rite Aid Corporation 2010
Omnibus Equity Plan, as amended from time to time (the “Plan”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Company
desires to amend the Plan to implement certain minimum vesting conditions
requested by Fidelity Investments in connection with the approval of the Plan
by the Company’s stockholders; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company’s
board of directors is authorized to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 21
of the Plan.


 


NOW THEREFORE, the Plan
is hereby amended, effective September 21, 2010, as follows:


 


1.                                       The last sentence of Section 4 of the Plan, Administration
of the Plan, is hereby amended by replacing the clause “Awards made
pursuant to Sections 7, 8, 9 or 10” with the following clause:


 


“Awards made pursuant to
Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 or 12”


 


2.                                       Section 9(c) of the Plan, Conditions to Vesting,
is hereby amended by inserting the following sentence at the end of the section:


 


“Notwithstanding anything
in this Section 9(c) to the contrary, unless otherwise provided by
the Committee pursuant to Section 9(h) or Section 14, Restricted
Stock which vests based on achievement of performance goals or levels of
performance may not become fully vested prior to the first anniversary of the
date upon which such Restricted Stock is granted.”


 


3.                                       Section 10(c) of the Plan, Conditions to Vesting,
is hereby amended by inserting the following sentence at the end of the
section:


 


“Notwithstanding anything
in this Section 10(c) to the contrary, unless otherwise provided by
the Committee pursuant to Section 10(d) or Section 14, Phantom
Units which vest based on achievement of performance goals may not become fully
vested prior to the first anniversary of the date upon which such Phantom Units
are granted.”


 


4.                                       Except as expressly modified by this Amendment No. 1, the Plan
shall remain in full force and effect.
Exhibit 23(c)

CONSENT

We hereby consent to the reference to our firm name and our review of the estimates of
proved reserves of natural gas, oil and natural gas liquids that Energen Corporation attributed to its net interests in oil and gas properties located in the U.S. as of December 31, 2008 which appears in this Form 10-K. In addition, we hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-119926) and Forms S-8 (File No. 33-46641, File No. 33-48505, File No. 333-26111, File No. 333-45107 and File
No. 333-84170) of Energen Corporation to the reference to our firm name and our review of the estimates of proved reserves of natural gas, oil and natural gas liquids that Energen Corporation attributed to its net interests in oil and gas
properties located in the U.S. as of December 31, 2008 which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ T. Scott Hickman & Associates, Inc.
|Midland, Texas                         
|February 24, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Signal
Investment & Management Co.'s unaudited financial statements and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                              19
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,840
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,859
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 358,307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        350,325
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,239
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   358,307
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,803
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,151
<INCOME-TAX>                                       731
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,420
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,420
<EPS-BASIC>                                      5,680
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    5,680


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO 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 AIMCO Properties, L.P. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Terry Considine, as equivalent of chief executive officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



|/s/TERRY CONSIDINETerry Considine Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of AIMCO-GP, Inc.,
(equivalent of chief executive officer of AIMCO Properties, L.P.) |  |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 

May 10, 2004

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 19, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2259]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       HONORING STEVEN B. COLYER

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. SAM GRAVES

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 19, 2008

  Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Steven B. 
Colyer of Buckner, Missouri. Steven is a very special young man who has 
exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership by 
taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 1381, and 
earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
  Steven has been very active with his troop, participating in many 
Scout activities. Over the many years Steven has been involved with 
Scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the 
respect of his family, peers, and community.
  Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Steven B. 
Colyer for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for 
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle 
Scout.

                          ____________________
```
# ***Exhibit 32.2***

# *** ***

# ***CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER***

**PURSUANTTO SECITON 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, beingthe Chief Financial Officer of AmeriVest Properties Inc., a Maryland realestate investment trust (the “Issuer”), hereby certifies that the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q (the “Quarterly Report”) of the Issuer for the three andsix months ended June 30, 2005, which accompanies this certification,fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78 m(a)) and that the informationcontained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

 
| August 5, 2005 |         |
|---------------------|--------------|
|                | By:          | /s/  Kathryn L. Hale |   |
|                |         |  Kathryn L. Hale |
| *** ***        | *** *** | *** Chief Financial  Officer*** |

 

1

----
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 428 

Congratulating the 2016 national champions, the University of South Dakota 

Coyotes, for winning the 2016 Women’s National Invitation Tournament. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2016 

Mr. ROUNDS (for himself and Mr. THUNE) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the 2016 national champions, the University 

of South Dakota Coyotes, for winning the 2016 Women’s 

National Invitation Tournament. 

Whereas, on April 2, 2016, the University of South Dakota 

Coyotes defeated the Florida Gulf Coast University Eagles by a score of 71 to 65 in the final game of the Women’s National Invitation Tournament (referred to in this 

preamble as the ‘‘WNIT’’) in Vermillion, South Dakota; 

Whereas this is the first national title for the University of 

South Dakota Coyotes since the transition of the University of South Dakota to Division I athletics; 

Whereas the Dakota Dome of the University of South Dakota, soon to be replaced with a new complex, hosted its 

final basketball game before a crowd of 7,415 fans; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 428 ATS 

Whereas the University of South Dakota Coyotes shot 71.4 

percent from beyond the 3-point line and 54 percent 

overall from the field in their 34-point win in the semifinal of the WNIT; 

Whereas senior guard Nicole Seekamp was named most valuable player of the WNIT and averaged 14 points per 

game throughout the WNIT; 

Whereas seniors Tia Hemiller and Nicole Seekamp were each 

named to the WNIT all-tournament team; 

Whereas the 2015–16 season was the fourth season for head 

coach Amy Williams, during which she won her first national title; 

Whereas the University of South Dakota Coyotes finished the 

2015–16 season with a record of 32–6; and 

Whereas the presence of 5 seniors and 4 juniors on the roster 

of the University of South Dakota Coyotes represents the 

commitment of the seniors and juniors to the University 

of South Dakota and its work to enshrine the ideal of the 

student-athlete into the ethos of the University of South 

Dakota: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) congratulates and honors the University of 

3 South Dakota women’s basketball team and its loyal 

4 fans on the performance of the team in the 2016 

5 Women’s National Invitation Tournament; and 

6 (2) recognizes and commends the hard work, 

7 dedication, determination, and commitment to excel8 lence of the players, parents, families, coaches, and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 428 ATS 

1 managers of the University of South Dakota wom2 en’s basketball team. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS