alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Abram Gammell, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Randolph M. Mulford *et al.,*defendant’s in error.

The assignee of an execution lias the same right to enforce it by levy and sale as had the plaintiff, and when A held, as plaintiff, an execution against a copartnership, and therefore against each partner, and there was no partnership property, and had levied it upon the property of B, one.of the partners, and C, a kinsman and friend of B, bought the execution, and took a transfer of it to hirqself, and dismissed the levy on the property of B, and had the execution levied on the property of D, the other partner:

*Held,*that the transferee was in this only pursuing a legal right, and that equity would not, on the complaint of D, setting up that he had paid more than his share of the debts of the firm, and. that B, the other partner, was solvent, restrains the levy. The property of both partners is bound by the judgment, and the creditor may proceed at his option against either, notwithstanding there may be equities in favor of the one proceeded against, so far as his partner is concerned.

Injunction. Partnership. Executions. Before Judge James Johnson. Muscogee county. At chambers.' August 1st, 1874.

Abram Gammell filed his bill against Randolph L. Mott and Randolph M. Mulford, praying that the latter might be enjoined from enforcing two executions against the individ*79ual property of complainant. The grounds upon which the injunction was sought are succinctly stated in the above headnote, and it is unnecessary to repeat them here. The chancellor refused the injunction, and complainant excepted.

Peabody *&*Brannon, for plaintiff in error.

Ingram & Crawford, for defendants.

McCay, Judge.

The act of 1829, Prince’s Digest, 464-5, providing for the transfer of unpaid judgments, authorizes the transferee to proceed to collect the same in as full and ample a manner as the plaintiff could have done. The right of a plaintiff who has a judgment against more than one person to proceed against either or both at his option, is a statutory right. His judgment is complete against either of the defendants. It is a stern, strict legal right, and the equities that may exist between the defendants, cannot, and ought not, to interfere. He has a complete judgment, as we have' said, against both and each, and neither can complain that he is proceeding to enforce his strict, stern legal right. To allow such a proceeding as is here proposed would open the door to vexatious delays, largely interfering with the rights of judgment creditors, and we do not hesitate to affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.
unambiguous). Jack implicitly concedes that the statute is unambiguous 

but argues that it would lead to an absurd result because the purpose of 

the statute is to protect the public via supervision. Jack does not explain 

how his desired interpretation of NRS 213.1243(8) to limit the State to 

pursue only one charge for all violations of a single lifetime supervision 

agreement achieves the legislative purpose any more than following the 

plain language of the statute. Jack also looks to this court's statement in 

Palmer v. State that violators "risk conviction of an additional felony and 

the imposition of an additional prison term." 118 Nev. 823, 830, 59 P.3d 

1192, 1196 (2002) (emphasis added). Jack takes Palmer's language out of 

context. That case did not hold that the State could obtain only a single 

conviction for multiple violations of a lifetime supervision agreement, but 

rather contrasted the consequences of violating lifetime supervision 

conditions with those of violating parole conditions, which do not 

necessarily result in a new conviction or term of imprisonment. 

Second, Jack argues that the district court erred in denying a 

proposed defense instruction that financial inability is a defense to the 

charge that was based on his failure to pay fees. Jack was entitled to a 

jury instruction on his theory of defense so long as there was some 

evidence to support the theory. See Rosas v. State, 122 Nev. 1258, 1262, 

147 P.3d 1101, 1104 (2006). However, Jack has failed to provide this court 

with the trial transcripts to demonstrate what his theory of defense was at 

trial or what evidence supported it. See NRAP 10(b)(1) (providing that 

appendices must include "the portions of the trial court record to be used 

on appeal, including all transcripts necessary to the Supreme Court's 

review"); Greene v. State, 96 Nev. 555, 558, 612 P.2d 686, 688 (1980) ("The 

burden to make a proper appellate record rests on appellant."). We 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A ma(01944 
therefore conclude that Jack has failed to demonstrate that the district 

court erred in denying his proposed jury instruction. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Gibbons 

Picker 

cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge 

Humboldt County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Humboldt County District Attorney 

Humboldt County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A oe.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 31, 2014

s0127

Order 

Clerk

January 31, 2014

147932

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147932

COA: 316819

Jackson CC: 09-005026-FC

WILFRED MARTIN HADLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 4, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,469
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,686
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,297
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,783
<PP&E>                                          44,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,865
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 737,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,729
<BONDS>                                        155,326
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    111,483
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,065
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   737,544
<SALES>                                        144,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               122,522
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   131
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (32,446)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,174
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,272)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

u the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus post judgment interest at the rate of % per annum, along with costs.

u the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

u other:

.

This action was (check one):

u tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

u tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

u decided by Judge on a motion for

.

Date: CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Lamont Washington

3:17-cv-341

Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, et. al,

✔ The Court hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. Accordingly,

this case is hereby DISMISSED and is CLOSED on the Court's docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

✔ Walter H. Rice

Report and Recommendations

11/21/2017
Exhibit 32.2





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 Quarterly Report of USA Video Interactive Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anton J. Drescher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



1.

this report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or  15(d) of the 1934 Act, and



2.

the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the registrant's financial condition and results of  operations of the registrant.



By: /s/ Anton J. Drescher

------------------------------------

Name: Anton J. Drescher

Title: Secretary and Chief Financial Officer

Date:May 11th, 2007
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 159 (Friday, August 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 50137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20125]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8424]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Chagall: Love, War, and Exile''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Chagall: Love, War, and Exile,'' imported 
from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the 
exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Jewish Museum, New 
York, NY, from on or about September 15, 2013, until on or about 
February 2, 2014, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet 
to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that 
Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: August 9, 2013.
Lee Satterfield,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-20125 Filed 8-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09241]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 90


Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines at or 
Below 19 Kilowatts

CFR Correction

0
In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 87 to 95, revised 
as of July 1, 2014, on page 199, in Sec.  90.116, after paragraph (a) 
and before the first paragraph (1), add paragraph (b) introductory text 
to read as follows: ``(b) Engines will be divided into classes by the 
following:''.

[FR Doc. 2015-09241 Filed 4-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
DANIEL P. HARGROVE, : Case No. 1:17-cv-560
Plaintiff, 3 Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz
vs.

CO HOLLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 46)
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United

States Magistrate Judge Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge
reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on August 1, 2018, submitted a Report
and Recommendation. (Doc. 46). No objections were filed.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo
all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
determine that the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in
its entirety.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:

1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 24) is GRANTED as to Defendant
Hubbard;


2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 24) is DENIED as to Defendant Holley;
and

3) Plaintiff's motion to change name and serve proper defendant (Doc. 45) is
DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: ota SS TC GbK
Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
BUDDY STRUCKMAN, Case No. 1:17-cy-543
Plaintiff, Barrett, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
VILLAGE OF LOCKLAND, et al., ORDER
Defendants.

Plaintiff brings this action against the Village of Lockland, Patrick Sublet and Drew
Jones. Plaintiff has filed his “First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33
with the Court. (Doc. 14). Plaintiffs discovery requests are not properly filed with the Court;
rather, plaintiff must serve his discovery requests on the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) (“A
party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b). . . .); Fed. R. Civ. P.
33(a)(1) (“[A] party may serve on any other party not more than 25 written interrogatories. . . .”).
Further, plaintiff's discovery requests are premature. Plaintiff cannot serve discovery requests
until the District Judge has ruled on the pending recommendations and any defendants who
remain in the case have been served. Accordingly, plaintiff's first set of interrogatories (Doc.
14) is STRICKEN from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:_ //// Y/, Z

Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: April 1, 2015 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR

–2013
- 0602 FROM: Ray

Saracino , EPA Region 9 SUBJECT: April 1, 2015 Telephone Conversation with ARB Regarding Proposed Clean

Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
**SUMMARY** A telephone conversation was held between EPA and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) on April 1, 2015 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan ’s description of affected electric generating units
. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2 , 2014 and published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014. **ATTENDEES** Chris Gallenstein, ARB Ray Saracino , EPA
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO


 


MAC-GRAY CORPORATION


 


2009 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN


 


The
Mac-Gray Corporation 2009 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, as amended, is
hereby amended by deleting Section 3(a) in its entirety and replacing
it with the following:


 


(a)    Stock Issuable.    The maximum number of shares of Stock
reserved and available for issuance under the Plan shall be 2,300,000 shares,
subject to adjustment as provided in this Section 3.  For purposes of this limitation, the shares
of Stock underlying any Awards awarded under this Plan or the Company’s 2005
Stock Option and Incentive Plan that are forfeited, canceled or otherwise
terminated (other than by exercise) shall be added back to the shares of Stock
available for issuance under the Plan. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following shares shall not be added
to the shares authorized for grant under the Plan: (i) shares tendered or
held back upon exercise of an Option or settlement of an Award to cover the
exercise price or tax withholding, and (ii) shares subject to a Stock
Appreciation Right that are not issued in connection with the stock settlement
of the Stock Appreciation Right upon exercise thereof.  Subject to such overall limitations, shares
of Stock may be issued up to such maximum number pursuant to any type or types
of Award; provided, however, that Stock Options or Stock Appreciation Rights
with respect to no more than 250,000 shares of Stock may be granted to any one
individual grantee during any one calendar year period, and no more than
1,500,000 shares of the Stock may be issued in the form of Incentive Stock
Options.  The shares available for
issuance under the Plan may be authorized but unissued shares of Stock or
shares of Stock reacquired by the Company.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 OR 15D-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Edwin Molina, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of USA Video Interactive Corp;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entitles, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of the  date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



c)

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

---



b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and



6.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





By: /s/ Edwin Molina

-----------------------------------

Name: Edwin Molina

Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:August 14, 2008
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 Quarterly Report of Spear & Jackson, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Fletcher,
acting Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of the
      Company.

/s/ William Fletcher
----------------

William Fletcher
Acting Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer

May 21, 2004
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Cory Colvin, Director of Enviro-Energy Corporation (the Registrant) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the fiscal period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 the Registrant.

Date:  August 19, 2003

/s/ Cory Colvin



Director