alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Superior Consolidated Land Company, Respondent, vs. The City of Superior, Intervener, Appellant.

*October 23*

November *7, 1899.*

*Appeal: Jurisdiction: Neturn,*

The supreme court acquires no jurisdiction of an appeal from an order if the return thereon fails in material particulars to comply with sec. 8050, Stats. 1898; as where the original of an essential paper is not included in the return and it does not appear that the court directed a copy to be substituted, and it does not appear, either from the clerk’s certificate or from recitals in the order in connection with the papers transmitted, that the return contains the papers used by each party on the application for the order.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Douglas county: A. J. TiNje, Circuit Judge.

*Appeal dismissed.*

The action was brought against the defendant' county ta set aside taxes returned delinquent by the city treasurer of the city of *Superior.*Such city, upon a petition setting-forth its interest in the litigation, asked to be made a party defendant in order to answer the complaint and protect such interest. The motion was denied, and the city appealed. The return on the appeal does not contain the original complaint. The cleric’s certificate is to-the effect that the papers returned are all the papers involved in the appeal.

*T. L. McIntosh,*for the appellant.

Eor the respondent there was a brief *by A. I. Scmborn,*attorney, and *Gatlin, Butler <& Lyons*and *S. L. Perrm,*of counsel, and a brief on the motion to dismiss by *A. L. San-born,*and the cause was argued orally by *Mr. Scunborn.*

MaRshall, J.

The appeal must be dismissed for want of a proper return. Sec. 3050, Stats. 1898, provides that on an appeal from an order the clerk shall transmit to the supreme *464court, in addition to such order, the original papers used by each party on the application therefor, and, annexed thereto, a certificate under his hand and the seal of the court that they are the original papers or copies, as the case may be, and that they are transmitted pursuant to the appeal. The section further provides that copies of papers may be transmitted instead of the originals, by special direction of the ■court. The return before us fails to comply with the requirements indicated in several material particulars. The original complaint is not in the return, nor does it appear that the court directed a copy to be transmitted in place of .such original. It does not appear, either from the clerk’s certificate or from recitals in the order appealed from in connection with the papers transmitted, that the return contains the papers used by each party on the application for the order. Such defects are fatal to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the appeal. *Flanders v. Sherman,*19 Wis. 178; *Carpenter v.*Shepardson, 43 Wis. 406; *Glover v. Wells & M. G. Co.*93 Wis. 13; *Hoffman & B. Mfg. Co. v. Burdick,*95 Wis. 342; *Tenney v. Madison,*99 Wis. 539.

*By the*Court.— The appeal is dismissed.
# C_2014157EN.01000101.xml

| 24.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 May 2014

2014/C 157/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3630 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,92 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4641 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80935 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0600 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2210 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1305 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,438 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 303,49 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1631 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4105 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8471 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4782 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4858 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5658 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5957 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7074 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 396,88 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,1149 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,5020 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5988 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 827,76 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3753 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,592 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 46,5079 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,434 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0229 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,5738 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,7472 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3630

JPY

Japanese yen

138,92

DKK

Danish krone

7,4641

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80935

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0600

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2210

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1305

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,438

HUF

Hungarian forint

303,49

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1631

RON

Romanian leu

4,4105

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8471

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4782

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4858

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5658

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5957

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7074

KRW

South Korean won

1 396,88

ZAR

South African rand

14,1149

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,5020

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5988

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 827,76

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3753

PHP

Philippine peso

59,592

RUB

Russian rouble

46,5079

THB

Thai baht

44,434

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0229

MXN

Mexican peso

17,5738

INR

Indian rupee

79,7472

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

I, Edwin W. Hortman, Jr., President and Chief Executive
Officer of Ameris Bancorp (the Company), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ending March 31, 2011 (the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                                                             
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 10, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Edwin W. Hortman, Jr.                                   
|                    |  |  |  | Edwin W. Hortman, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer
|                    |  |  |  | (principal executive officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         114,897
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,509,002
<ALLOWANCES>                                   254,807
<INVENTORY>                                  6,521,078
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,720,693
<PP&E>                                       3,794,236
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,612,056
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,346,267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,865,198
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       123,474
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,283,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,346,267
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,982,443
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,891,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,148,090
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,955
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,109,399)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (542,500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,566,899)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,566,899)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.64)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of I-many, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of I-many, Inc., certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) or 15(d), as applicable, 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
operations of the Company.



|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ JOHN A. RADE                                                             
|Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President (principal executive officer)
|August 8, 2008                                                               



|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ KEVIN M. HARRIS                                                               
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal
financial and accounting officer)
|August 8, 2008
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

THERON SPEIGHTS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3955

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed February 21, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Pinellas County; Frank Quesada, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Speights v. State, 202 So. 3d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) 

(table decision); McDonald v. State, 133 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Doby v. State, 

25 So. 3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); 

Speights v. State, 11 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (table decision); Valdez-Garcia v. 

State, 965 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Henry v. State, 933 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2006); Steward v. State, 931 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Shortridge v. State, 884 

So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Speights v. State, 875 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) 

(table decision); Brown v. State, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Harris v. State, 
- 2 -

777 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Harris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2001).

KHOUZAM, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAR 24 2004

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

SAMUEL E. TOOTLE, II,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

COLONEL COLLEEN MCGUIRE,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-3162

(D.C. No. 02-CV-3013-RDR)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.
-2-

On February 20, 2004, this court ordered Mr. Tootle to show cause why this appeal

should not be dismissed as moot. Mr. Tootle filed a timely response, which we have

reviewed. We now dismiss the appeal.

Mr. Tootle, a former inmate of the United States Disciplinary Barracks in Fort

Leavenworth, Kansas, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. §

2241 petition for habeas corpus. He was convicted before a general court-martial of

numerous offenses and was sentenced to a term of 3140 days of confinement. As is

proper in the case of a § 2241 petition, he does not challenge the validity of his conviction

and sentence, only the execution of his sentence. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164,

166 (10th Cir. 1996). Specifically, he complains that he was improperly classified upon

his admission to the USDB; improperly denied employment; and retaliated against for

exercising his right to appeal his sentence by being assigned to a non-working detail, all

of which caused him to earn fewer credits toward sentence reduction than he would

otherwise have earned. His § 2241 petition seeks injunctive relief against any future

retaliation, and an award of Good Conduct Time and Extra Good Conduct Time credits.

On October 19, 2003, during the pendency of this appeal, Mr. Tootle completed

his sentence and was released from incarceration at USDB. A claim for good time credits

becomes moot where the prisoner has been released and asserts no continuing

incarceration or period of probation or parole that can be the subject of judicial relief. See
-3-

generally Aragon v. Shanks, 144 F.3d 690, 691-92 (10th Cir. 1998). Mr. Tootle’s claim

for good time credits is therefore moot.

Nor does Mr. Tootle have any continuing claim for injunctive relief against future

retaliation. His release from incarceration has mooted these claims as well. See

Wirsching v. Colorado, ___F.3d___, No. 00-1437, 2004 WL 309318, at *4 (10th Cir.

Feb. 19, 2004). 

As there are no cognizable claims before us, we dismiss this appeal as moot. Mr.

Tootle’s “Motion to Attach Documents to the Record” is denied.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2011-0381

Directorate Identifier: 2010NM203AD

MTCM 000-32-720-708, R21 --- 2/5/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1 601

In re: DEANDRE JOHNSON , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 2 :1 9

- c v - 00 562

- RAJ

- LRL )

Submitted : July 23, 2020 Decided: July 28, 2020

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Deandre Johnson , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Virginia prisoner Deandre J ohnson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the recusal of the magistrate judge assigned to his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) proceeding and directing the district court to grant Johnson relief on his petition . We conclude that Johnson is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy

Brown, LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, manda mus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. Murphy

- Brown , 907 F.3d at 795. Moreover, m andamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007 )

. The r elief sought by Johnson is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Johnson’s petition s for writ of mandamus and deny all pending motions . We dispense with oral argument because the fact s and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2591 

To establish the National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 3, 2021 

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

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To establish the National Equal Pay Enforcement Task 

Force, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Equal Pay for Equal 

5 Work Enforcement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NATIONAL EQUAL PAY ENFORCEMENT TASK 

7 FORCE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—There is established the National 

9 Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force, consisting of rep10 resentatives from the Equal Employment Opportunity 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2591 IS

1 Commission, the Department of Justice, the Department 

2 of Labor, and the Office of Personnel Management. 

3 (b) MISSION.—In order to improve compliance, public 

4 education, and enforcement of equal pay laws, the Na5 tional Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force will ensure that 

6 the agencies in subsection (a) are coordinating efforts and 

7 limiting potential gaps in enforcement. 

8 (c) DUTIES.—The National Equal Pay Enforcement 

9 Task Force shall investigate challenges related to pay in10 equity pursuant to its mission in subsection (b), advance 

11 recommendations to address those challenges, and create 

12 action plans to implement the recommendations. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2015322EN.01000101.xml

| 30.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 322/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 322/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7379 — Mylan/Abbott EPD-DM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 322/01)

On 28 January 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7379. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7379. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1


                                    AMENDMENT
                                       to
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of April 19, 2002, modifies the
terms and conditions of the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between I-many, Inc. (the
"Company") and Timothy P. Curran ("Executive"), dated as of July 1, 2001 (the
"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have
the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement. Any term or
condition of the Agreement in conflict with the terms or conditions of this
Amendment shall be deemed to be specifically and expressly superseded by the
provisions hereof.

Section 2.3 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

          2.3 ACCELERATION OF STOCK OPTIONS. If the Company is consolidated with
     or merged into another entity (other than a consolidation or merger in
     which the stockholders of the Company immediately prior to the
     consolidation or merger own a majority of the issued and outstanding shares
     of stock of the survivor corporation, or of an entity owning the survivor
     corporation, immediately after the consolidation or merger); or if the
     business of the Company is acquired by another entity in an acquisition of
     all or substantially all of the Company's assets; or an entity acquiring in
     a transaction or series of related transactions in a three month period
     from the then-existing stockholders, more than 50% of the Company's issued
     and outstanding shares of capital stock (each a "Company Sale"); then (a)
     fifty percent (50%) of the Executive's unvested options on the date of the
     Company Sale shall become exercisable in full immediately prior to the
     closing of such Company Sale, and (b) thereafter, if the Company terminates
     the Executive's employment or reduces his base compensation or potential
     bonus compensation without cause during the period ending twelve months
     after the Company Sale, then the remainder of the Executive's then-unvested
     options shall become exercisable in full.

All other terms of the Agreement shall remain unmodified by this Amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has caused this Amendment to be executed
in duplicate originals.

I-MANY, INC.                                           EXECUTIVE

By:   /s/ A. Leigh Powell                              /s/ Timothy P. Curran
    --------------------------------                   -------------------------
A. Leigh Powell                                        Timothy P. Curran
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer