alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William A. Hatcher, plaintiff in error, *vs.*John E. Jones, president, defendant in error.

That the mortgagor has been adjudged a bankrupt, and the property-mortgaged claimed by him in the schedule to his petition annexed as a homestead, (it not appearing that the mortgagee ever proved his debt, or that any steps.have been taken in the bankrupt court to contest or discharge his mortgage lien,) are no reasons why the state courts should not proceed to foreclose the mortgage.

Bankrupt. Mortgage. Homestead. Before Judge Strozer. Calhoun Superior Court. March Term, 1874.

On June 4th, 1873, a rule *nisi*issued at the instance of John E. Jones, as president of the Central Georgia Bank, against William A. Hatcher, requiring him to show cause why a certain mortgage executed by him on February 24th, 1871, should not be foreclosed. The defendant was served on June 13th, 1873. He showed for cause that on November 1st, 1873, he was adjudged to be a bankrupt; that on February 7th, 1874, L. D. Monroe' was appointed his assignee ; that the property embraced in the mortgage aforesaid was set forth in the schedules to his petition attached and claimed as a homestead exemption; and that further proceedings should be stayed until the determination of the bankrupt court on the question of his discharge. The court overruled said showing and ordered a rule absolute to issue; whereupon the defendant excepted.

J. John Beck; A. Hood, by. brief, for plaintiff in error.

C. B. Wooten, by R. F. Lyon,' for defendant.

McCay, Judge.

The bankrupt was well aware that he had given this mortgage, and it was his own fault to have taken his exemption on the property mortgaged. The bankrupt act expressly preserves the liens of mortgages, and if the mortgagee does not prove his debt, he may proceed with his mortgage without reference *209to the proceedings in bankruptcy. Had the assignee so determined, he might have forced the mortgagee into the bankrupt court. If the claim of the bankrupt for exemption was superior to the mortgage, and it was necessary to settle the rights of the parties, to call the mortgagee before the bankrupt court, we doubt not it could have been done. But unless (lie mortgagee, either by his own volition or by proceedings for the purpose, is before the bankrupt court, any disposition of property there is always subject to incumbrances.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2



                            CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Covance Inc. ("Covance") on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William E. Klitgaard,
Corporate Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Covance, certify,
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) 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 Covance.



Date:    March 6, 2003

                                       /s/ WILLIAM E. KLITGAARD
                                       -----------------------------------
                                           William E. Klitgaard
                                           Corporate Senior Vice President
                                           and Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Financial Officer)


                                                                               1
COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

HJSA NO. 3, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Appellant,

v.

SUNDOWN ENERGY LP, SMC 2000 LP, PGP HOLDINGS 1, LLC, SMITH ALLEN OIL & GAS, LLP,
TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPLORATION LLC, FORTUNE NATURAL RESOURCES CORPORATION, TEXAS HEAT OF THE PERMIAN BASIN, INC.,
WHITING OIL AND GAS CORPORATION, EAGLE ROCK ACQUISITION PARTNERSHIP II, LP, ODYSSEY ROYALTIES, LLC, HORIZON ROYALTIES LLC, PINECONE RESOURCES LLC,
BRENDA DORMAN FAUGHT, and LENA RENEE BRIGMAN,

Appellees. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 18

- 00113

- CV

Appeal from the

143rd District Court

of Ward County, Texas

(TC# 16

- 05

- 23886

- CVW)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in that

part of the judgment granting partial summary judgment for Appellees and denying Appellant’s

cross motion for partial summary judgment. We therefore reverse that part of the judgment

,

render judgment stating that under the unambiguous terms of lease, Sundown was required to

engage in a continuous development program to maintain the lease under Paragraph 7(b), and2

that program required the spudding in of a continuous dev elopment well within 120 days of

completion or abandonment of a prior well; and remand to the trial court for further proceedings

in accordance with this Court’s opinion.

We conclude there was no error in that part of the judgment regarding the exclusion o f

extrinsic evidence. We therefor e affirm that part of the judgment. We further order that

A ppellant and its sureties, if any, see T EX .R.A PP .P . 43.5, and Appellees each pay one

- half (1/2)

the costs of this appeal. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ. Palafox, J. (Dissenting)
# Nebraska Guard Conducts TOW Missile System Training Exercise

/ Published Dec. 27, 2022

FORT RILEY, Kan. – Nebraska National Guard Soldiers from the 1-134th Cavalry Squadron and 2-134th Infantry Battalion had the rare opportunity to conduct live-fire training with 32 missiles Dec. 13.

Thirteen Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided missile system and Improved Target Acquisition System gunners in the Nebraska Army National Guard’s only combat arms units trained at Fort Riley.

“The purpose of this training was to give Soldiers experience and to get them familiarized and qualified with the TOW weapon system,” said Capt. Joshua Kelsey, range officer-in-charge, Headquarters Headquarters Troop, 1-134th Cavalry Squadron.

To be able to fire the weapon system, each Soldier had to complete a roughly week-long TOW Gunner Course and training tables. This live-fire event was the last of the required training tables for the Soldiers to become fully qualified on the weapon system.

The TOW can be mounted on a tactical vehicle or tripod. For this training, the Soldiers fired the missiles from the tripod.

This was the first time most of the Soldiers fired a TOW missile and the first time since roughly 2017 that the Nebraska units had the opportunity to fire them.

“We don’t get the opportunity to shoot these often, and definitely not this many,” said Sgt. Owen McClenny, cavalry scout, B Troop, 1-134th Cavalry Squadron. “The last time I shot one was off of a Bradley in 2016.”

The TOW is an anti-tank missile with a longer effective range and a larger warhead than previous missiles.

“It sounds cliche using the buzzwords like ‘being more lethal’ and ‘being a force multiplier,’ but that is exactly what combat arms is supposed to be,” Kelsey said. “It is one of our most deadly weapon systems, and proper training is necessary to be effective in combat.”

The day-long training ended just before sunset.

“I think this training went as well as it could have went,” said Staff Sgt. Christopher Moulton, range safety officer, 1-134th Cavalry Squadron. “A bunch of the missiles were past their shelf life and designated for training only, so a few hangfires and misfires were expected. Having roughly 24 successful shots is still a good training experience.”
*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 97-50737

Summary Calendar

_______________

ADRIAN A. MILES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

JEFFREY P. LAMB,

Sergeant, Hughes Unit,

and

BRIAN K. ROWE,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(W-95-CV-323)

_________________________

October 7, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Adrian Miles, a state prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint alleging excessive use of force and deliberate

indifference to his safety. Miles appeals the magistrate judge’s

denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c). We review for abuse of discretion. Jackson v. Dallas
 

1

Miles has also moved for appointment of appellate counsel. Because he has

not demonstrated exceptional circumstances, this motion is denied.

2

Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). Finding no

reversible error, we affirm.1

I.

No automatic right to counsel exists in a § 1983 case. Cupit

v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). Instead, we appoint

counsel only in those cases in which “exceptional circumstances”

are present. Id. In determining whether exceptional circumstances

exist, “two basic factors” control: “the type and complexity of the

case, and the abilities of the individual bringing it.” Branch v.

Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). Although from time to

time we have elaborated on these factors, see Ulmer v. Chancellor,

691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982) (listing “type and complexity” of

case; indigent’s ability to present case; indigent’s ability to

investigate case; and indigent’s “skill in . . . presentation” as

factors), case complexity and indigent ability predominate. See

Cupit, 835 F.2d at 86; Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 412 (5th

Cir. 1985) (citing Branch, 686 F.2d at 266). Indeed, the

“additional” factors listed in Ulmer are merely functions of case

complexity and indigent ability.

The magistrate judge found that Miles’s case “is not . . .

complex, nor does it raise any new or novel issues. Additionally,

the pleadings filed herein, indicate that the Plaintiff is able to

litigate the action pro se.” Because the record supports this
3

determination, the court did not abuse its discretion. While a

more detailed explanation of the findings would have facilitated

our review, we hasten to add that on a record as clearly devoid of

“exceptional circumstances” as this one, even purely conclusional

determinations can be upheld on appeal. See Jackson, 811 F.2d

at 261.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Southern Copper Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Genaro Guerrero, VicePresident, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
|   | /s/ Genaro  Guerrero                                 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Genaro Guerrero                                      |
|   | Vice President,  Finance and Chief Financial Officer |

 

February 24, 2009

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by section 906 has been provided to Southern CopperCorporation and will be retained by Southern Copper Corporation and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 12.3 CERTIFICATIONS Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of SCOR, a French company
(the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the
Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. Dated: October 20, 2004  
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document. E-18
### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 01 11 -C V

______________________________

I N RE: DEL VI N DARNEL LJ AMES

Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r a n d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Moseley2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Delvin Dar

nell J ames filed a

petition for writ of manda mus complain i ng of the Ha rrison County District C l er k 's al l eg ed re fusal to re spond to his mot ions for a f ree appellate rec ord, and failure to provide the same
. Mandamus is an e x traordina ry reme dy that issues only

to corre ct a clea

r abuse of discre tion
or a violation of a duty imposed by law when no other adequate reme dy by law is ava ilable. Sta te
v. W alker , 6 7 9 S. W. 2 d

4 8 4 , 4 8 5 ( T e x. 1 9 8 4 )
. T h is Co u rt h a s th e a u th o r it y to is s u e a

w r it of mandamus in two instances, the first being when it is nece ssary to enforc e this Court's jurisdiction. T EX . G OV ' T C ODE ANN . § 22.221(a) (Ve rnon 2004). I t is J ames' s burden to prope rly reque st and show entitlement to the mandamus re lief he r equests. Se e ge ne ra lly Johnson v. Fourth Distr ict Cou rt o f A pp e als , 700 S.W .2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig . proce eding ). James does not claim the exis tence of, and does not attach evidenc e of, a n appea lable orde r or notice of appe al. Thus, J ames has not made a

showing that the writ of manda mus is necessar

y to enforc e our jurisdiction. The sec ond instance in which we have authority to issue a writ of mandamus occurs w here it is " a g a in s t a ju d g e o f a d is tr ic t o r c o u n ty c o u rt in th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls d is tr ic t; o r a ju d g e of a di st ri ct cou rt act in g as a magi st rat e at a cou rt of in qu ir y in th e cou rt of ap peal s d is tr ict ." T EX . G OV ' T C ODE ANN . § 22.221(b) ( Ver non 2 0 0 4). James seeks a w rit of mandamus a g ainst a district cler k. B e c a us e the c le rk is not a pr op e r pa rt y a g a ins t w hic h ma

nd a mus re lie f m a y

be br ou g ht i n th is C ou rt , we de ny J ames' s petition for writ of manda mus a g ainst the Har

rison County

District Clerk for la ck3

of ju risdiction. In re Phillips , No. 06-07-00057- CV, 2007 WL 1202773 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 25, 2007, no pe t.) (mem. op., not desig nated f or publication). We deny the petition for wr it of mandamus.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: October 9, 2008 Date D ecide d: October 10, 2008
# Tennessee National Guard, Bulgaria strengthen relationship

/ Published Dec. 2, 2021

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Col. Todd Wiles, commander of the 118th Wing, and Chief Master Sgt. Trenton Williams, 118th WG command chief, with Tennessee National Guard leadership, visited Graf Ignatievo Air Base in Bulgaria to strengthen the Tennessee National Guard’s relationship with the Bulgarian military through the State Partnership Program. 

 “The Bulgarians are moving over to fighter aircraft like the F-16 platform,” said Williams. “We are looking to help them with that transition. It’s going to include training their support personnel, maintenance capabilities, and the ability to defend their base effectively.” 

The visit bolstered the bond that the 118WG has with Bulgaria and fostered a stronger rapport between the United States and its NATO allies. The Bulgarian Military and the Tennessee National Guard’s State Partnership Program have resulted in both standing up and strengthening Bulgaria’s military capabilities. Since the beginning of the program, Bulgaria joined both NATO in 2004 and the European Union in 2007. 

“We are focusing on helping them develop their people,” said Williams. “Teaching them to develop and lean on their enlisted leaders. Teaching them this so in the future they can develop quicker and faster results.” Bulgaria’s recent parliamentary approval of purchasing F-16’s to replace their aging fleet of RAC MiG-29’s will continue Bulgaria’s connection with the United States into the future. The purchase will also include weapons and upgrade packages for the F-16 platform to keep it operational into the future. 

“They have some smart and competent people and over the past 25 years are making the transition from former Soviet-era style of leadership,” said Williams. “We look forward to continuing our work with Bulgaria’s Air Force and supporting them in this transition.”
EXHIBIT24.9

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESEPRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints each ofDamien M. Sullivan, Ross G. Landsbaum and Barry F. Schwartz or any ofthem, each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact andagent, with full power of substitution, for him and in his name, placeand stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with thePANAVISION INC. (the "Corporation")Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 underthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, withoutlimiting the generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in thename and on behalf of the Corporation or on behalf of the undersignedas a director or officer of the Corporation, and any amendments to theForm 10-K and any instrument, contract, document or other writing, ofor in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments thereto, and to filethe same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connectiontherewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities andExchange Commission and any applicable securities exchange orsecurities self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-factand agents, each acting alone, full power and authority to do andperform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be donein and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as hemight or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all thatsaid attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substituteor substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtuehereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed thesepresents this 30th day of March, 2006.

|  | /S/ ROBERT S. WIESENTHAL ROBERT S.WIESENTHAL |
|--|----------------------------------------------|

----
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.40


 


Maximum Pledge Contract


 


Contract No.:SJZ091072010006-03


 


Pledgor : Shijie Kaiyuan Auto Trade Co., Ltd.


 


Pledgee :Hua Xia Bank Shijiazhuang Jianhua Branch


 


Signing Date :January 31, 2013


 


Pledge Definition :   To ensure multiple loans Party
B (Pledgee) has lent to Shijie Kaiyuan Auto Trade Co., Ltd., Party A (Pledgor) is willing to provide the Maximum Pledge Guarantee
hereunder for Party B.


 


Maximum Amount: RMB150, 000,000


 


Pledge Term : From January 31, 2013 to January 30, 2014


 


Collateral: The assets Party A pledges to Party B as Collateral
are listed in Maximum Pledge Contract (No.:SJZ091072010006-03). The appraised value of the Collateral is RMB 187,500,000.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6945

RAYMOND GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEBORAH SHANDLES, Assistant District Attorney; DONALD C. 

PATE, Trooper – NC State Highway Patrol; T. MCELROY, 

Detective – Raleigh Police Department; S. JOHNSON, Raleigh 

Police Officer; C. PIERCE, Raleigh Police Officer; D. 

HARPER, Raleigh Police Officer; DONNIE HARRISON, Wake County 

Sheriff; CHARLES CALDWELL, NC Public Defender; CHRISTY 

HIGHSMITH, Assistant Public Defender; JOURNALIST AND MEDIA; 

JOHN AND JANE DOE; DETECTIVE MCKEON, Raleigh Police 

Department,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:15-ct-03145-D)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. 
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Griffin appeals the district court’s orders 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss, after 

a 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2012) review, Griffin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2012) action, and denying Griffin’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 

motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we deny Griffin’s motion for appointment of 

counsel and affirm the district court’s orders. See Griffin v. 

Shandles, No. 5:15-ct-03145-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 22, 2016; May 18, 

2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                          REGISTRY MAGIC INCORPORATION
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         Amendment No. 1 dated July ____, 2000 to Employment Agreement dated
December 19, 1997 (the "Employment Agreement") between REGISTRY MAGIC
INCORPORATED (the "Company") and LAWRENCE COHEN (the "Executive").

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have previously entered into the
Employment Agreement, and

         WHEREAS, the parties wish to extend the term of the Employment
Agreement on the terms hereafter provided:

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged by each of the parties hereto, the
parties hereby agrees as follows:

1. The Company and the Executive agree that the term of employment of the
Employment Agreement shall be extended from December 19, 2000 through December
19, 2003.

2. For the extended term of the Agreement, the Company shall pay the Executive a
salary of $115,500 per year as provided in Section 3 of the Agreement, except
the provision relating to the increase of salary following completion of the
initial public offering of the Company shall be null and void, and the Executive
waives any right he has had with regard to such incremental salary during the
term of the Agreement.

3. Except as modified by this Amendment, the terms of the Agreement shall
continue to be in effect for the initial term of the Agreement and the extended
term as provided in this Amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have executed this Amendment No. 1 to the
Agreement as of the above date.


                           REGISTRY MAGIC INCORPORATED



                                                     By:
                                                        ----------------------
                               Authorized Officer




                                                     LAWRENCE COHEN
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 06/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.44 N 77.04 WMeters AGL