alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Den on demise of Hardy *v.*Jones.

From Washington.

In-cjeclment, the lessor of the Plaintiff claimed title under a grant describing the lands *as confiscated*lands, the property of A. Bl It is incumbent on him to shew that the lands had been confiscated, to authorise the issuing of the grant. For the grant shews the title was once *out*of the'State, and accounts for its being again in the State, by averring the fact of confiscation. This fact must be proved, otherwise it docs not appear that the State had any authority to make the grant.

The lessor of the Plaintiff'claimed title under a grant from the State, by which the lands in question were granted to him as confiscated lands, the property of Governor White; and it was objected by the Defendant, that it was incumbent on him to prove that the land had been confiscated, to authorise the issuing of the grant. The presiding Judge overruled the objection, and,there was a verdict for tiie Plaintiff. A rule for a new trial being obtained, the same was sent to this Court.

By tiik Court.

it appears from the Plaintiff’s own shewing, that the title to the lauds was once *out*of the State and *in*Governor White. The State cannot resume this title at her pleasure, and pass it by grant to the lessor of the *Plaintiff;*nor has she pretended to do such an act 5 but in the grant she declares that the lands of Governor White had been confiscated, and the title to them vested in her by the confiscation. If *this bo*true, the State had a right to grant the lands to the lessor of the *Plaintiff;*but if not true, the State had no such right. The fact of confiscation is therefore necessary to be proved, before any validity can attach to this grant. The rule for a new trial must be made absolute.
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Cecil Bancorp, Inc.2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report.4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
    5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers
auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
    /s/ Mary B. Halsey

Mary B. Halsey
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
 Page 20
Unassociated Document


Exhibit 10.10


 





 


Mr. Steven B. Leonard



 


222 Club Drive





 


Novato, CA 94945





 


415-722.1080





 


December 9, 2009





 


Ms. Kim Kaselionas


 


CIRCLE BANK





 


1400 Grant Avenue


 


Novato, CA 94945





 


RE:       Consultation Fee Agreement





 


    Acquisition of 999 Grant Note and Deed of Trust from Umpqua Bank





 


Kim,





 


In the event Circle Bank completes its acquisition of the Note and Deed of Trust from Umpqua Bank which is secured by 999 Grant Avenue, Novato, CA Circle Bank will agree to pay Steven B, Leonard $16,000 as a consulting fee for services rendered in connection with acquisition of this note. Please sign and return this letter as soon as possible.





 


Respectfully,


 


Steven B. Leonard


 


Agreed and Approved:


 


Circle Bank-Kim Kaselionas
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

          This Amendment to the employment agreement (the "Employment
Agreement") entered into as of November 1, 2000 by and between Telemundo
Communications Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Vincent
L. Sadusky ("Executive") is entered into as of October 8, 2001 and is effective
as of the date hereof.

          WHEREAS, Executive and the Company entered into an employment
agreement ("Employment Agreement") effective as of November 1, 2000; and

          WHEREAS, Executive and Company desire to eliminate a provision of the
Employment Agreement that provides for a special bonus, which was erroneously
included in the Employment Agreement.

          NOW, THEREFORE, the following amendment to the Employment Agreement is
hereby approved:

          Section 3(c) is deleted in its entirety.

          Section 3(d) is re-labeled Section 3(c).

          This Amendment to the Employment Agreement may be signed in
counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the
signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our respective hands this 8th
day of October, 2001.

                                             TELEMUNDO COMMUNICATIONS GROUP,
                                             INC.



                                             -----------------------------------
                                             By:



                                             VINCENT L. SADUSKY




                                             -----------------------------------
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7777

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY LEWIS MUSGROVE, a/k/a Fats,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:10-cr-00080-LO-1; 1:11-cv-00789-LO)

Submitted: May 8, 2014 Decided: June 6, 2014

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Lewis Musgrove, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Riley 

Pedersen, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Lewis Musgrove appealed the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We 

granted a certificate of appealability and the Government’s 

unopposed motion to remand. After an evidentiary hearing on the 

claims for which the certificate was granted, the district court 

denied relief. Musgrove appeals the court’s order on remand 

denying § 2255 relief. 

The order entered on remand is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Musgrove has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We deny Musgrove’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Southern Company for the year ended December 31, 2008, we, the undersigned, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our individual knowledge and belief, that:

 

| (1)    | such Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Southern Company for the year ended December 31, 2008, which this statement accompanies, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Southern Company for the year ended December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Southern Company. |

 

 

 

|   | /s/David M. Ratcliffe

David M. Ratcliffe

Chairman, President and

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/W. Paul Bowers

W. Paul Bowers

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

                             |

 

 

Date:  February 25, 2009
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Aceto Corporation, a New York
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Douglas Roth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
          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.




/s/ Douglas Roth
----------------
    Chief Financial Officer
    September 8, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Aceto Corporation and will be retained by Aceto Corporation and
furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

Nos. 06-1932, 06-1933, 06-1934, 06-1935

JOSEPH H. REINHARDT, J.D.,

Cross-Appellant.

EIU GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

JAMES W. BRODERICK; JOHN R. STAMATOV;

ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS AGENCY, INC.;

ENVIRONMENTAL CAPITAL INSURANCE BROKERAGE, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GULF INSURANCE COMPANY; CITIBANK DELAWARE, INC.;

KENT ZIEGLER,

Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

GULF UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY; GULF GROUP LLOYDS;

SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY; ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on June 11, 2007 is amended

as follows: 

On page 6, line 18: Replace "policies" with "properties."
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



The undersigned, Brian J. Martin,
President (chief executive officer) of the managing owner, Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. (the Managing Owner), of Diversified Futures Trust I (the Trust); hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Trusts Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                          |  |  |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|/s/ Brian J. Martin                                                                       |  |  |  | 
|Brian J. Martin President (chief executive officer) of the Managing Owner August 13, 2004 |  |
Steven R. Volz 

Thomas G. Wieland 

David A Grotkin 

JoelA.Joyce 

To the Partners of E.C Ortiz & Co., LLP 

CPAs 

A century of new ideas 

System Review Report 

Brian]. Mechenich 

Carrie A. Gindt 

Patrick G. Hoffert 

Jason]. Wrasse 

April 23, 2014 

and the Illinois CPA Society Peer Review Committee 

We have reviewed the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of E.C Ortiz & 

Co., LLP (the firm) in effect for the year ended August 31, 2013. Our peer review was conducted in 

accordance with the Standards for Performing and Reporting on Peer Reviews established by the Peer 

Review Board of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. As a part of our peer review, we 

considered reviews by regulatory entities, if applicable, in determining the nature and extent of our 

procedures. The firm is responsible for designing a system of quality control and complying with it to 

provide the firm with reasonable assurance of performing and reporting in conformity with applicable 

professional standards in all material respects. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the design 

of the system of quality control and the firm's compliance therewith based on our review. The nature, 

objectives, scope, limitations of, and the procedures performed in a System Review are described in the 

standards at www.aicpa.org/prsummary. 

As required by the standards, engagements selected for review included engagements performed under 

Government Auditing Standards and examinations of service organizations [Service Organizations 

Control (SOC) 1 engagements). 

In our opinion, the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of E.C Ortiz & Co., 

LLP in effect for the year ended August 31, 2013, has been suitably designed and complied with to 

provide the firm with reasonable assurance of performing and reporting in conformity with applicable 

professional standards in all material respects. Firms can receive a rating of pass, pass with 

deJiciency(ies) or Jail. E.C Ortiz & Co., LLP has received a peer review rating of pass. 

Reilly, Penner & Benton LLP 

Reilly, Penner & Benton LLP 

1233 N. Mayfair Road Suite #302. Milwaukee, WI 53226-3255·414-271-7800
#### Bank of Eagle, Respondent, vs. Pentland and wife, imp., Appellants.

*September 12*

October *9, 1928.*

*41For the appellants there was a brief by *E. H. Sprague*of Elkhorn and *McGowan, Geffs, Fox- & Persons*of Janes-ville, and oral argument by *B. D. McGowan.*

For the respondent there was-a brief by *Charles Lyon*of Elkhorn and *Jacobson & Malone*of Waukesha, and oral argument by *Marcus A. Jacobson.*

SteveNS, J.

The testimony fails to show that the use made of the land in question was hostile or adverse to the title of the appellant. “The testimony shows simply occupancy and use. The law has been settled in this state, by repeated decisions, that evidence of adverse possession is always to be construed strictly, and every presumption is *42to be made in favor of the true owner. . . . Adverse possession is not to be made out by .inference, but by clear' and positive proof; and one in possession of land to which'he has no claim of title is presumed to be in possession in amity with and in subservience to the legal title of the real owner. ... To constitute adverse possession there must be the fact of possession and the hostile intention, — the intention to usurp possession. Mere permissive possession is never a basis for the statute of limitations. The successive possessions of several distinct occupants of land, between whom no privity exists, cannot be tacked or united to make up the requisite period of the statute bar. While it is not necessary, in order to create such privity as will enable a subsequent occupant to tack his possession to that of the prior occupant, that there should be a conveyance in writing, and although such prior possession may be transferred by parol, yet it must clearly appear that the particular premises, as in this case the strip in dispute, were in fact embraced in the deed or transfer in whatever form it may have been made. No presumption can be indulged in on this subject.” *Ryan v. Schwartz,*94 Wis. 403, 410-412, 69 N. W. 178.

The finding that the use made of the land by plaintiff’s predecessors in title was under claim of right is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. Even if the evidence sustained this finding, there is no proof that any such claim of right to possession on the part of plaintiff’s predecessors in title was ever conveyed to the plaintiff either by deed or by parol transfer of such rights. The sheriff’s deed cannot perform this function because of the fact that the mortgage upon which it was based did not cover the land here in question.

The judgment must therefore be modified by striking therefrom the description of all property located in the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section 17. As so modified the judgment is affirmed.

*By the Court.*— So ordered.
Order entered April 24, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01615-CV

TRANSITIONAL ENTITY LP, DURACARE LLC, AND CHARLES SYLVESTER,

Appellants

V.

ELDER CARE LP AND BEVERLY A. DAWSON, Appellees

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-11642

ORDER

We GRANT appellants’ April 22, 2015 second agreed motion to enlarge time to file 

brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than May 15, 2015. Appellants are cautioned that 

no further extensions will be granted absent exigent circumstances.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 14/2005

of 5 January 2005         

amending for the 42nd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freezing of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 7(1), first indent, thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 January 2005.

For the Commission

Benita FERRERO-WALDNER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2145/2004 (OJ L 370, 17.12.2004, p. 6).

----

ANNEX

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended as follows:

----
# C_2020209EN.01000202.xml

| 22.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/2

---

Appeal brought on 24 November 2019 by Nathaniel Magnan against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2019 in Case T-99/19 Nathaniel Magnan v Commission

(Case C-860/19 P)

(2020/C 209/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Nathaniel Magnan (represented by: J. Fayolle, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 26 March 2020, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

---