alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Carter v. Goode.

CONFLICT of Laws: *Action oftm't.*

An action of tort for an injury to person or property cannot "be maintained unless the act which causes the injury, is punishable or actionable, by the law of the place where it is committed.

APPEAL from *Qrawford*Circuit Court.

R. B. Rutherford, Judge.

*156
      *L. G. Baleh,*for appellant.

1. . The circuit, court has no jurisdiction. Inasmuch as there was no violation of any law of the country where the act was done, there can be no right of action here. There being no law in the Cherokee Nation making it a trespass for one to shoot another’s mule trespassing on his premises, no right of action existed. To render a person liable for a tort in the courts of this state committed'in a foreign jurisdiction, it must be shown that there was a fixed legal liability under the laws of such foreign country. 58*Vt., 727; 2 Kent Com,.,*458 *to*461; 103 77. *S.,*11; *Gooley on Torts,*471; *Story Gonf. Laws,*747; 1 *Bos. & Pull.,*133 ; 8 *Johns, jRep.,*189.

Cocicrill, C. J.

Goad sued Carter before a justice of the peace in Crawford county, Arkansas, to recover damages for an injury to a mule, the property of the plaintiff. Carter answered, and on the trial proved that the injury was inflicted in the Cherokee Nation, where he and Goad were at the time residing; that they were then, as now, citizens of Arkansas, and had no permit or license to reside in the Indian country; that at the time the injury was inflicted the mule was trespassing in Carter’s enclosure, which Goad knew it was in the habit of doiug, and that Goad had no redress whatever for the injury, and that the act was not punishable in the Indian Territory.

On appeal to the circuit court there was judgment for the plaintiff.

In order to maintain an^aetion of tort founded upon an injury to person or property, the act which is the cause of the injury and the foundation of the action must be actionable or punishable, at least, by the law of the place where the injury is done. *Cooley on Torts, p.*471; *Wharton on Conf. Laws, sec.*478; *Holland v. Pack, Peck’s Tenn. Rep.*
      *157151; *Le Forrest v. Tohman,*117 *Mass.,*109; *Smith v. Condry,*1 *How.,*28; *McLeod v. Railroad,*58 *Vt.,*727.

It' is conceded, upon this record, that that state of case does not exist.

Reverse and remand.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**ChiefExecutive Officer Certification**

 

I, R. Jack DeCrane,certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DeCrane Aircraft Holdings,Inc.;

 

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)           Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)           (Paragraphomitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986)

 

(c)           Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(d)           Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)           Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)           Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: November 12, 2004

 
|   | /s/ R. JACK DECRANE     |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | R. Jack DeCrane         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Joe Willie STEWART v. STATE of Arkansas

702 S.W.2d 2

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered January 27, 1986

*John Norman Warnock,*for petitioner.

*Steve Clark,*Att’y Gen., by: *Theodore Holder,*Asst. Att’y Gen., for respondent.

Per Curiam.

Petitioner, Joe Willie Stewart, by his attorney, *118John Norman Warnock, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. His attorney admits that the record was tendered late due to his miscalculation of the ninety-day limit for filing the record in this Court. *See*Ark. R. App. P. 5(a).

We find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. *See*per curiam dated February 5, 1979, 265 Ark. 964; *Terry*v. *State,*272 Ark. 243 (1981).

A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Purtle J., not participating.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JESUS MAYORGA-GONZALEZ, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:18-CR-23(1) 

JUDGE WALTER H. RICE 

ORDER OF REFERENCE TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(B) and S.D. Ohio Local Rule 72.2, the Court 

directs the Clerk of Courts to REFER the above-captioned case to a United States 

Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendations on Defendant's Motion to 

Correct a Clear Error of Law and to Prevent Manifest Injustice Pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e), Doc. #105. 

Date: July 28, 2021 

WALTER H. RICE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case: 3:18-cr-00023-WHR-PBS Doc #: 106 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 491
[Cite as Alexander v. Miami Univ., 2011-Ohio-2887.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

JOHN ALEXANDER 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

MIAMI UNIVERSITY 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-04939-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, John Alexander, a former employee of defendant, Miami 

University, filed this action claiming defendant failed to properly compensate him for all 

overtime work he had previously completed. The filing fee was paid. 

{¶ 2} 2) Defendant filed an investigation report acknowledging plaintiff has “a 

valid claim” for unpaid overtime in the amount of $56.39. 

{¶ 3} 3) Plaintiff did not respond. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶ 4} 1) Defendant is liable to plaintiff in the amount of $56.39, plus the 

$25.00 filing fee which may be reimbursed as compensable costs pursuant to R.C. 

2335.19. See Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1990), 62 

Ohio Misc. 2d 19, 587 N.E. 2d 990. 

 
Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

JOHN ALEXANDER 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

MIAMI UNIVERSITY 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-04939-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE

DETERMINATION

 Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth 

in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor 

of plaintiff in the amount of $81.39, which includes the filing fee. Court costs are 

assessed against defendant. 

 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Frederick H. Green Paul S. Allen 

4015 Executive Park Drive Miami University 

Suite 230 Roudebush Hall Room 14 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45241 Oxford, Ohio 45056 
RDK/laa 

Filed 3/17/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 6/9/11
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group; Reproduction, Andrology, and Gynecology Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         February 17, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute, of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Room 2125B, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Assisted Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Derek J. McLean, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver  National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Room 2125B, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 443-5082,                         *derek.mclean@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 12, 2022.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-00823 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 10.2


 


SECOND
Amendment to CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE 


 


This
Second Amendment to Convertible Promissory Note (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of
October 23, 2015 (the “Amendment Effective Date”) by and between Global Defense & National Security Systems,
Inc. (the “Company”), and Global Defense & National Security Holdings LLC (the “Lender”).
Capitalized terms used in this Amendment but not defined herein shall have the meanings given in the Note (as defined below).


 


Whereas:
the Company previously issued a Convertible Promissory Note having an initial principal amount of US$1,263,263 with an issuance
date as of May 15, 2014, as amended on July 21, 2015 (the “Note”); and


 


Whereas:
each of the Company and the Lender desires to amend certain terms of the Note in accordance with the terms and provisions in this
Amendment.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the premises and the mutual covenants contained in this Amendment, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.          Section
2 is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in lieu thereof:


 


“2.          This
convertible promissory note (the “Note”) will be repaid in full on the earlier of (1) November 24, 2015, or
(2) immediately following the consummation of the Company’s initial Business Combination (as defined in the Company’s
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation) (the “Business Combination Trigger”).”


 


2.          Except
as modified by this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Note shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment and the
Note (including the documents referred to herein and therein) represent the entire understanding of the parties hereto with respect
to the subject matter hereof and thereof and supersede all prior agreements or understandings, oral or written, with respect to
the subject matter hereof and thereof. In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of this Amendment and/or the
Note (including the documents referred to herein and therein), (a) to the extent the conflicting provisions can reasonably
be interpreted so that such provisions are consistent with each other, such consistent interpretation shall prevail; and (b) to
the extent the preceding subsection (a) does not apply, the terms of this Amendment shall control.


 


3.          This
Amendment will be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the state of Delaware.


 


[Signatures on the following page]


 




     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the Amendment Effective Date.


  


	GLOBAL DEFENSE & NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC:	GLOBAL DEFENSE & NATIONAL SECURITY HOLDINGS LLC:
	 	 
	 	By: Black Marlin Ltd, its Manager


 


	By:	/s/ Frederic Cassis	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By:	/s/ Damian Perl
	Name:	Frederic Cassis	 	 	 
	 	 	 	Name:	Damian Perl
	Title:	
        Secretary 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 	Title:	Manager






	Execution Date:	October 23, 2015	 	 	 
	 	 	 	Execution Date:	October 23, 2015


 




    2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 06 OF THE SABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (SUBSECTION (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES
                                      CODE)


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), each of the
undersigned officers of Subjex Corporation, a Minnesota corporation (the
"Company"), does certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on
Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that: (1) the 10-QSB
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the 10-QSB
Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of the Company.


                              By /s/ Andrew Hyder

                              Andrew Hyder, CEO (acting CFO)
                              November 17, 2005
Case: 2:18-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/02/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 1
Case: 2:18-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/02/18 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 2
Case: 2:18-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/02/18 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 3
Case: 2:18-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/02/18 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 4
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

Joy D. Duvall, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 1:17cv738 

Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Defendant. 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed 

by the Magistrate Judge on December 27, 2018 (Doc. 16). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), 

including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file 

objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. 

Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s R&R 

(Doc. 16) have been filed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 16) of the Magistrate Judge is 

hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, the 

decision by the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this matter is closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett, Judge 

United States District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

1

IN THE MATTER OF: 1

i CASE No.

THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE 1

WARRANTS, APPLICATIONS, PEN j CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REGISTERS, AND NON- \ ELIZABETH A. PRESTON-DEAVERS

DISCLOSURE ORDERS IN THE |

CASES LISTED IN ATTACHMENT |

A

FILED UNDER SEAL

ORDER TO UNSEAL

Upon the Motion ofthe United States Attorney and for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED that the Search and Seizure Warrants, Applications, Pen Registers, and NonDisclosure Orders and related documents in the cases listed in Attachment A in the above-entitled

matter, be unsealed.

Case: 2:18-mj-00051-CMV Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 30
ATTACHMENT A:

2:17-l\/lJ-434 2:18-MJ-007 2:18-MJ-756 2:19-MJ-001 2:19-MJ-471

2:17-MJ-585 2;18-MJ-8 2:18-MJ-840 2;19-MJ-45 2:19-MJ-481

2;17-MJ-586 2:18-MJ-9 2:19-MJ-121 2:19-MJ-498

2:17-MJ-587 2:18-MJ-10 2:19-MJ-122 2:19-MJ-510

2:17-MJ-588 2:18-MJ-17 2:19-MJ-127 2:19-MJ-512

2:17-MJ-589 2;18-MJ-51 2:19-MJ-153 2:19-MJ-527

2:17-MJ-617 2:18-MJ-61 2:19-MJ-174 2:19-MJ-528

2:17-MJ-644 2:18-MJ-92 2:19-MJ-175 2:19-MJ-553

2:17-MJ-676 2:lS-MJ-205 2:19-MJ -191 2:19-MJ-560

2:17-MJ-677 2:18-MJ-213 2:19-MJ-255 2;19-MJ-561

2:17-MJ-678 2:18-MJ-232 2:19-MJ-265 2:19-MJ-562

2:17-MJ-679 2:18-MJ-326 2:19-MJ-266 2;19-MJ-563

2:17-MJ-696 2;18-MJ-355 2:19-MJ-272 2:19-MJ-564

2:17-MJ-713 2:18-MJ-379 2:19-MJ-273 2:19-MJ-570

2;17-MJ-714 2:18-MJ-397 2:19-MJ-276

2;17-MJ-715 2:18-MJ-398 2:19-MJ-290

2;17-MJ-747 2:18-MJ-404 2:19-MJ-291

2;17-MJ-758 2:18-MJ-411 2:19-MJ-320

2;17-MJ-759 2:18-MJ-429 2:19-MJ-348

2:17-MJ-761 2:18-MJ-434 2:19-MJ-349

2:17-MJ-762 2:18-MJ-460 2:19-MJ-379

2:17-MJ-782 2:18-MJ-498 2:19-MJ-414

2:17-MJ-791 2:18-MJ-512

2:18-MJ-515

2:18-MJ-532

2:19-MJ-460

Case: 2:18-mj-00051-CMV Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 31
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1517

BARRY GREEN, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BOMBARDIER CAPITAL, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-03-4070-3-22BD)

Submitted: September 29, 2004 Decided: October 8, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barry Green, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan M. Milling, MCNAIR LAW

FIRM, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Barry Green, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting

Defendant’s motion to dismiss this civil action. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Green v. Bombardier

Capital, No. CA-03-4070-3-22BD (D.S.C. filed Apr. 15, 2004; entered

April 16, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 3472-024]
 On April 30, 2020, Aspinook Hydro, LLC filed an application for a new major license for the 2.78-megawatt Wyre Wynd Hydroelectric Project (Wyre Wynd Project) (FERC No. 3472). The Wyre Wynd Project is located on the Quinebaug River in New London and Windham Counties, Connecticut. The project does not occupy federal land. In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on October 6, 2021, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the record, including comments filed on the REA notice, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the application to license the Wyre Wynd Project. The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and considered in the Commission's final licensing decision. The application will be processed according to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. Milestone
Target dateCommission issues EA
June 2022.1Comments on EA
July 2022.
 Any
                    
                     questions regarding this notice may be directed to Kristine Sillett at (202) 502-6575 or 
                    *kristine.sillett@ferc.gov.* Dated: January 11, 2022. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.


# Footnotes

1.
    
                         The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations under 40 CFR 1501.10(b)(1) require that EAs be completed within 1 year of the federal action agency's decision to prepare an EA. This notice establishes the Commission's intent to prepare an EA for the Wyre Wynd Project. Therefore, in accordance with CEQ's regulations, the EA must be issued within 1 year of the issuance date of this notice. Back to Citation


[FR Doc. 2022-00812 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P