alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Fremit*— Chancellors Ruteeboe, Bumce and Marsh alt.

#### Peigne *vs.*Snowden.

June, 1800.

CASE CXXVII,

KF.ronn boob, page 116.

A married man cannot convey property of which he wa« the absolute owner, in trust for hir. wife, to the prejudice of a creditor, to whom he was indebted before he executed the deed. There was no evidence that she was a sole dealer, and that the property was purchased with her earnings. The pretence of a small debt to the wife would not support the conveyance of a large property in trust for her, to the prejudice oí creditors-

Chancellor Rutlege

delivered the decree.

The single question in this case is, whether the deed of settlement of 30th June, 1796, is to be considered as fraudulent or not, with respect to defendant, to whom Peigne was indebted, previous to making the deed. From the records of the conveyance for the lots which Peigne settled in trust for 1ns wife, it appeal’s plainly that he was the absolute owner of the property, with regard to one lot (and which was the most valuable.) so long as Jan. 1792; and as to the other from April, 1794. That he exercised every act of ownership over it that a person could do, by leasing one lot and mortgaging another. And although he recorded the paper writing which he calls a settlement in July, 1793, he does not seem to have contemplated a settlement, until upwards of four years after the purchase of the first lot; more than two years after the purchase of the second lot; and not until after he had contracted the debt with the defendant, which are strong symptoms of a fraudulent intention. We lay no stress on the receipt being given for the money in her name: The bonds were her husbands, and the court must presume the money to have been his also. It appears from the testimony of one of complainant’s evidences, that she did not keep a store till 1794, so that the first l,ot which he purchased in 1792, could not have been bought with the mon,ey gained by her earnings. There *592is no evidence of her being a sole dealer till he const!-tuted her one by deed (not that a deed is absolutely ne» cessary) but in the present case there has nothing come ou^ *n evidence to warrant a conclusion that she was. Another strong circumstance to induce a presumption that the settlement was made with a fraudulent intention is, that it constituted the whole of Pejgne’s property, amonnting, as complainant Snowden states, to upwards of 2000Z. for the purpose of securing to her so small a sum as 8000 florins, the value of which is not above *9701.*or 280Z. Complainant in her bill has charged that her husband contracted that debt with defendant subsequent to the execution of the deed of trust. That charge has-been fully contradicted by defendant’s oath, by the evidence of his books, and by the testimony of one of his clerks.

Upon the whole of this case, the complainant does not stand in so fair a point of view as to entitle her to the relief prayed for. The injunction therefore must be dissolved and the bill dismissed, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of Ergo Science Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-02310) of our report,dated
February 28, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of
Ergo Science Corporation as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 1996, which report is included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                         COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Boston, Massachusetts
March 26, 1997
ex10_3.htm








Exhibit 10.3


 



FIRST AMENDMENT TO


AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







 


This FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of March ___, 2013 among AV HOMES, INC. (formerly known as Avatar Holdings Inc.) (the “Company”), AVATAR PROPERTIES INC. ("Avatar"), and Tina Johnston (“Executive”).


 


RECITALS


 



	
  

	
A.

	
The Company and Avatar previously entered into that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated September 29, 2011 (the "Agreement").







 



	
  

	
B.

	
The Company and Executive now wish to amend the Agreement to remove certain performance vested restricted shares in consideration for the grant of certain restricted shares pursuant to Executive's 2013 Incentive Compensation Plan (the "New Shares").







 


 


AGREEMENT


 


Accordingly, Avatar, Executive and the Company in consideration of the grant of the New Shares hereby agree as follows:


 



	
  

	
1.

	
Section 4(a) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and shall read as follows with the remainder of Section 4 unchanged:







 


(a)           [Reserved].




 


[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]


 




  





  











  







 




 


This undersigned have duly executed and delivered this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.


 









	  	
AV HOMES, INC.:


	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	
Roger A. Cregg


	  	
President and CEO


	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	
AVATAR PROPERTIES, INC.:


	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	
Roger A. Cregg


	  	
President and CEO


	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	
EXECUTIVE:


	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	
Tina Johnston







 



[Signature Page to First Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement]
### DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER

December 30, 2011

Dennis McLerran Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region 10

1200 6 th Avenue, Suite 900 (Mail Stop RA-140) Seattle, WA 98101

Dear Mr. McLerran:

As the Governor’s designee for the Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (SIP), the Department of Environmental Conservation is withdrawing the November 13, 2009 request for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval of SIP amendments. The 2009 request included revisions to the state’s regulations (portions of 18 AAC 52 and 18 AAC 50.030) for the motor vehicle emission Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program and Anchorage Carbon Monoxide (CO) maintenance plan.

Prior to EPA action on the 2009 request, the Department further revised the Anchorage CO maintenance plan and transmitted those revisions and request for approval to EPA in a letter dated September 29, 2010. The 2010 request supersedes the 2009 SIP revision request. The 2010 revisions were significant and will suspend the I/M program as an active control measure in the Anchorage CO maintenance area upon final approval of this SIP revision by EPA.

We look forward to EPA’s action on the 2010 request.

Sincerely,

Larry Hartig

Commissioner

cc: Debra Suzuki, EPA Region 10 Claudia Vaupel, EPA Region 10 Alice Edwards, DEC AQ Cindy Heil, DEC AQ/ANPMS SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR

410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303

Post Office Box 111800 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800

Phone: 907-465-5066

Fax: 907-465-5070

www.dec.state.ak.us
Opinion filed October 6, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-16-00263-CV

__________

DANIEL FRANKLIN, Appellant

V.

CRYSTAL REYES ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 259th District Court

Jones County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 023537

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On September 12, 2016, Daniel Franklin filed in the trial court a notice of

appeal in which he sought to appeal an order of dismissal that was signed by the trial 

court on February 26, 2016. When the appeal was docketed in this court, we notified 

Appellant by letter that it appeared to this court that the notice of appeal was 

untimely filed, and we requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to 

continue the appeal. 
2

In his response, Appellant asserts that he did not receive notice of the 

dismissal until September 7, 2016, and that he diligently filed his notice of appeal 

soon after receiving notice of the dismissal. When a party fails to receive timely 

notice of an appealable order, Rule 306a.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 

extends the time in which a notice of appeal may be filed. However, “in no event 

shall such periods begin more than ninety days after the original judgment or other 

appealable order was signed.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a.4.

The documents on file in this case show that, on February 26, 2016, the trial 

court signed a final, appealable order in which it dismissed Appellant’s cause of 

action in its entirety. Ninety days from that date was May 26, 2016. Thus, even if 

Rule 306a.4 applied, the latest possible due date for Appellant’s notice of appeal was

thirty days after May 26, which would have been June 27, 2016, since June 25 fell 

on a Saturday. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 26.1. Appellant did not file his notice of 

appeal until September—well after the deadline. Absent a timely notice of appeal, 

this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Wilkins v. Methodist 

Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 564 (Tex. 2005); Garza v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank, 

227 S.W.3d 233, 233–34 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see also 

Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Because we are without 

jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

October 6, 2016

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
**Custom er Service Hotline: 1**  **- 800**  **- 438**  **- 2474**  **UNITED STA**

**TES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A**  **GENCY**

**REGION III 1650 A**  **rch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103**  **- 2029**  July 16. 2012 The Honorable Robert M. Summers Secretary , Mary land Department of the Environment 1 8 00 Washington Boulevard Baltimore , M ary land 2 1230 Dear Secretary Summers : On April 5, 201 2 , the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to Mary land’s State I mplementation Plan (SI P) pertaining to adoption of EPA methods, procedures and work pra ctice standards establish ed as part of EPA’s Control Techniques Guidelines for: (1) paper, film and foil coatings; (2) industrial cleaning solvents; (3) miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings; (4) large appliance coatings; (5) offset lithographic p rinting and letterpress printing; (6) flat wood paneling coatings; and (7) flexible package printing. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, an d is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. If members of y our staff have any questions, they

may direct them to Ms. Jacqueline Lewis , Office of Air Program Planning, at (215) 814

- 2 037 . She is the principal contact for this rulemaking. Sincerely , /s/ David Arnold for D i a na Esher, Director Air Protection Division

c c: George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr., Director , Air and Radiation Management Administration Diane Franks, Manager , Air Quality Planning Program
# Úřední věstník C 212A/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0863 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 212A |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Ročník 6224. června 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0863

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 212A

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Ročník 6224. června 2019

---

| Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- |
| | Opravy |
| 2019/C 212 A/01 | Oprava oznámení výběrového řízení na volné pracovní místo výkonného ředitele Evropské agentury pro léčivé přípravky (EMA) – Amsterodam (dočasný zaměstnanec – třída AD 14) – COM/2019/20037 ( Úř. věst. C 165 A ze dne 14.5.2019 ) | 1 |

Obsah

Strana

Opravy

2019/C 212 A/01

Oprava oznámení výběrového řízení na volné pracovní místo výkonného ředitele Evropské agentury pro léčivé přípravky (EMA) – Amsterodam (dočasný zaměstnanec – třída AD 14) – COM/2019/20037 ( Úř. věst. C 165 A ze dne 14.5.2019 )

1

---

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

Opravy

| 24.6.2019 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 212/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 212/1

---

Oprava oznámení výběrového řízení na volné pracovní místo výkonného ředitele Evropské agentury pro léčivé přípravky (EMA) – Amsterodam (dočasný zaměstnanec – třída AD 14) – COM/2019/20037

(
  Úřední věstník Evropské unie C 165 A ze dne 14. května 2019
  )

(2019/C 212 A/01)

Strana 6, „Datum uzávěrky“:

místo:

„Datum uzávěrky registrací je 13. června 2019, 12:00 (poledne) bruselského času. Poté již registrace nebude možná.“,

má být:

má být

„Datum uzávěrky registrací je 4. července 2019, 12:00 (poledne) bruselského času. Poté již registrace nebude možná.“

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20541 Summary Calendar

FELDON BONNER, II, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus THE CITY OF HOUSTON; THE CITY OF HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHARLES D. HURLEY; THOMAS LADD; MILAN F. KARDATZE; JOHNNY MOORE; M.E. DOYLE; MUNICIPAL LIABILITY INSURANCE CARRIER, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-96-1113

- - - - - - - - - - October 21, 1996 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Feldon Bonner, II, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction. Bonner has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury warranting a preliminary injunction, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. Lakedreams v.No. 96-20541 - 2 - Taylor , 932 F.2d 1103, 1106-07 (5th Cir. 1991). The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. Bonner has also moved this court to appoint counsel, to conduct a hearing en banc on the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction, to direct the district court to conduct a hearing on his motion for a preliminary injunction, and to direct the court to conduct a hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). Bonner’s motions are DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
ex10-12.htm



Exhibit 10.12


 



Sales contract of Industrial and Mineral Products


Contract No._____


Supplier: Taiyuan Hongxing Carbon Black Co., Ltd


 


Buyer:    Qingdao Guoren Technology co., Ltd.


 


Place of signing contract: Qingxu: Taiyuan


 


Date of signing contract: December 31, 2007


 


1. Product name, trade mark, model, quantity, amount of money, delivery time and quantity


 



	
Product Name

	
Model

	
Unit

	
Quantity Required/Monthly

	
Price


(RMB per ton)

	
Amount(RMB)

	
Remarks


	
Carbon Black

	
N220

	
Ton

	
200

	
5900

	  	
1. The price in this agreement is current market price 

2. The quantity is decided by the number actually occurred.




	
Carbon Black

	
N330

	
Ton

	
100

	
5600

	  	
 


	
Carbon Black

	
N660

	
Ton

	
100

	
5600

	  	  
	
Total

	  





 


2. Quality requirements, technical standards, the conditions and duration of which supplier is responsible for:National standard or by buyer’s standard


 


3. The place of delivery and method: buyer’s warehouse, Specific quantity and delivery time are subject to telephone or fax-based communication


 


4. Means of transport, expense for transport and related items: The buyer bear the burden


 


5. Reasonable wear and tear and method of calculation    None


 


6. Packaging standards supply and recycle of packaging materials   None


 


7. Acceptance criteria, methods, and period to hold discussion on goods delivered: Within 7 days after the delivery


 


8. Random spare, number and supply method of accessories    None


 


9. Payment method and period: Within 30 days after the delivery and the invoice being recognized.


 


10. If guaranty is needed, the guaranty agreement is also needed as appendix    None


 


11. Liability for breach of contract: It shall be settled according to the contract law of PRC


 


12. The mechanism of dispute settlement:  It shall be settled through negotiation.


 


13. Other agreed matters:


 


  a. Quality Assurance Documents


 


  b. The price is subject to the market condition, and the quantity is determined by the actual number occurred. It shall inform the buyer at 7 day’s advance if there is a change in above items.


 



	
Supplier:


Company Name (Seal):


Company Address:


Legal Representative:


Entrusted  agent :


Telephone:


Opening  bank:


Bank Account:


Zip Code:

	
Buyer:


Company Name:


Company Address:


Legal Representative:


Entrusted  agent:


Telephone:


Opening  bank:


Bank Account:


Zip Code:







 Valid period: From January 1, 2008 to December 31,2008
Exhibit 32.1  Certification  Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:  (1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;  (2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (3) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.  By:Inland Real Estate Investment CorporationGeneral PartnerBy:/S/ Brenda G. GujralName:Brenda G. GujralTitle:President of the General Partner andPrincipal Executive Officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.PDate:July 27, 2007
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

Certification pursuant toSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

I, David Obstler, the ChiefFinancial Officer and Treasurer of ScreamingMedia Inc. (the “Company”), certifythat (i) the Company’s 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofScreamingMedia Inc.

 

 
| /s/ David  Obstler |   |
|--------------------|--------|

David Obstler, CFO &Treasurer

Date: August 14, 2002

 

----
17757

#### John W. CAULEY, Respondent, v. ROSS BUILDERS SUPPLIES, INC., and United States Casualty Company, Appellants

(118 S. E. (2d) 879)

*Messrs. Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Jokw-stone,*of Greenville, *for Appellants,*

*Messrs. Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann,*of Green-ville, *for Respondent,*

*39March 16, 1961.

Legge Justice.

Respondent, an employee of Ross Builders Supplies,, Inc,, while trimming a piece of board to make a wedge as an ac-cbmfhodatióri' for1 a' fellow employee, sustained' an injury which - necessitated áfnputation of three fingers " of the left hand.' ’The hearing' Commissioner’s'' award of compensation wás affirthed- by-the full Commission, save for reduction bf the'-amount-awarded for'disfigurement. Appeal here is from *¿'*'circuit'court-order 'affirming the Commission’s award. The sole i question' for our determination is whether there was evidence to. support the Commission’s finding that the accident árose but of. and in'the course of the employment.

Respondent, a-white man twenty-three years old, who had had training as a carpenter, was first employed by the company in 1957,. to. build.displays. He was later transferred to the company’s carpentry shop, where he did general carpentry, including construction of window units, display counters, and door frames. Later he was assigned to the company’s store as salesman in the paint department; and in addition to such duties-he- was often requested by his supervisor, Mr. Stone, to build counters for display of the cohipány’s equipment' .and.merchandise;;Mr.' Stone’' ymuld indicate what kind of display counters he wanted, but the actual work of constructing them was left to respondent, who •iVc5Üíd.'ídO-'this’'5vlork,-iñ''thfe 'carpentry-shop during periods ■when'wo'rltf'in.'the'isfore'was-slack;'. \h.“. '■

*40On December 4, 1958, after finishing his lunch, respondent went to the carpentry shop to make a leg for a display counter. Having found a board suitable for that purpose, and having run it over the table saw and cut its width to eight inches, he decided that he would first make from it a wedge for a fellow employee, Burfield, to level a mantel clock in Burfield’s home, respondent having a short time before made one for him that had not given a satisfactory result. While pushing the board through the joiner to taper it, respondent was injured. The evidence shows without contradiction that to have cut and tapered the wedge would have taken about five minutes.

This is not a case of lending aid to a fellow employee in the performance of the latter’s duty to the employer. The task that respondent was performing was entirely personal to his fellow employee, and his injury was therefore not compensable unless the deviation from the course of his employment was so trivial that it could be fairly characterized as insubstantial. Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, Section 27.15. The Commission found as a fact that the deviation was insubstantial. We think that the evidence before referred to adequately supports that finding.

Affirmed.

Taylor, Acting Chief Justice, Oxner and Moss, JJ., and Steve C. Griffith, Acting Associate Justice, concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3898 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3898

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the temporary 
 increase in limitations on expensing of certain depreciable business 
                                assets.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 22, 2009

 Mr. Kratovil introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the temporary 
 increase in limitations on expensing of certain depreciable business 
                                assets.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Property Reinvestment 
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY INCREASE IN LIMITATIONS ON EXPENSING OF 
              CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (7) of section 179(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or 2009'' and inserting ``2009, or 
        2010'', and
            (2) by striking ``or 2009'' in the heading thereof and 
        inserting ``2009, and 2010''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.
                                 <all>
```