alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jordan *v.*Walker.

Coneedebate money. — Where consideration of a contract is Confederate money, the contract is void *ab initio.*

*Error to Crawford Circuit Court.*

Hon. Thomas Boles, Circuit Judge.

*Clark, Williams*<f- Martin, for plaintiff.

*Watkins*<?• Hose, for defendant.

*2WlLSHIRE, C. J.

This was an action of debt, brought by Sallie E. Jordan, as administratrix of Pleasant Jordan, deceased, against William Walker, in the Crawford circuit court, at the November term thereof, 1866, on a writing obligatory, bearing date March ,4, 1863, for $1,000, with interest at ten per cent.

The defendant interposed one special plea in bar, alleging that the writing obligatory was executed by him to the plaintiffs intestate, in his life time, in consideration of Confederate treasury notes, loaned and advanced by the plaintiff’s intestate to the defendant, and for no other consideration.

The plaintiff replied, confessing the allegation of the defendant’s plea, that the writing obligatory sued upon was executed by the defendant in consideration of Confederate treasury notes, but sets up, in avoidance of the plea, that, although the consideration of the writing obligatory was Confederate treasury notes, it was not made payable in Confederate treasury notes, hut, by the tenor and effect of the writing obligatory, it was payable in lawful currency of the United States, etc.

The cause was submitted to the circuit court, sitting as a jury, upon the issue joined, which, found for the defendant and rendered judgment against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff moved for a new trial; the court below overruled the plaintiff’s motion, and he brought error.

We deem it unnecessary to notice the motion for a new trial. The question of the illegality of the contract presented by defendant’s plea, stands confessed by the plaintiff’s replication.

The admission, by the plaintiff’s replication, of the illegality of the consideration of the writing obligatory sued upon, brings this case within the ruling of this court in the case of *Latham v.*Clark, decided at the last term; *25*Ark., *574.*The consideration being illegal, the contract was void *ah initio,*and the courts will not aid in its inforcement.

The judgment of the court below is, in all things, affirmed.
Niji Kemp CARRINGTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0678

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
p.1 

OAR Box 1787 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

78) ll-C-36 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/2008 10:22:19 AM Sheet 78 of 147 
P.2 

'><*••% 

* 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY & " ^ "3Q> 

WASHINGTON, D.C 20460 

AUG I 6 1989 

r ! 

OPFKSOF 

AOlAMDfcADtATJOH 

Mr. James B. MacRae, Jr. 

Deputy Administrator 

Office of Information 

and Regulatory Analysis 

Office of Management and Budget 

Washington, D.C. 20503 

7'i ii-*** l-y^____-__^2 

Dear Mr. MacR J,~. 

This is in response to your July 19, 1989 letter regarding the 

development of implementing guidance for the Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA's) "top-down" policy for the purpose of determining best 

available control technology (BACT). Specifically, it is your view that 

"top-down" guidance must be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 

as a rule under Executive Order No. 12291 before it is published. 

While we do not agree that EPA's development and implementation of a 

"top-down" approach to determining BACT constitutes a rule as defined in the 

Executive Order, we will provide this material for your review before it is 

issued in final form. Currently, EPA is still in the process of receiving 

comments on the first draft of the "top-down" guidance document. 

Consequently, we expect it will be some time before we will be able to send 

you the final guidance material for review. 

Sincerely, 

William GMtosenberg 

Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 

cc: G. Emison
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco SANCHEZ-BALLI, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41554 c/w No. 16-41559 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Evan Gray Howze, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Francisco Sanchez-Balli, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Sanchez-Balli has *149moved for leave to -withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Sanchez-Balli has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedént except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

v. Dornoff, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3022.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-3022

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. DORNOFF, APPELLEE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State v. Dornoff, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3022.] 

Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the authority of State v. Dangler and cause 

remanded. 

(No. 2018-1125―Submitted May 13, 2020―Decided May 26, 2020.) 

CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Wood County, 

No. WD-16-072, 2018-Ohio-3084 

_________________ 

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and this cause is 

remanded to the court of appeals for application of State v. Dangler, __ Ohio St.3d 

__, 2020-Ohio-2765, __ N.E.3d __. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 

and STEWART, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and David T. Harold, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant, state of Ohio. 

_________________
EXHIBIT
31.1


CERTIFICATION
 
 PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Gerald
E. Bisbee, Jr., Ph.D., certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics, Inc. (the
“registrant”);
 
 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
report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 report;
 
 4. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a – 15(e) and 15d – 15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
 
 b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.
 
 Date: May
11, 2009
 
 By:
                /s/
      Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr., Ph.D.Name:
                Gerald
      E. Bisbee, Jr., Ph.D.Title:
                President
      and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS FILED AS
PART OF THE APACHE MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE ANNUAL PERIOD ENDED
JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,348
<SECURITIES>                                     1,469
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,080
<ALLOWANCES>                                       456
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,788
<PP&E>                                           3,931
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,424
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,766
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,705
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,691
<SALES>                                          1,829
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,829
<CGS>                                              778
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      778
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,807
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (699)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (699)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (699)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    ($0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.09)


</TABLE>
Durell Willis SIMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-126

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 8, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Exhibit 10.1

 

Summary of BSA Plans

 

Share warrants or BSA (bons de souscription d’actions) are purchased by the holders and entitle each of them to subscribe for new shares of our Company at an exercise price set at the time of grant.

 

Administration. Pursuant to delegations granted at our general meeting of the shareholders, our board of directors determines (and formerly our executive board (directoire) determined) the list of the beneficiaries, the granting dates, the purchase price, the exercise price, the number of BSA granted and the terms and conditions of the BSA, including the number shares underlying each BSA, their exercise period.

 

Grants. Our BSA were granted to independent members of our former supervisory board (conseil de surveillance), independent members of the board of directors and scientific consultants of our Company. A total of 167,630 BSA has been granted and 155,940 BSA has been purchased by the beneficiaries under six (6) plans, in 2014, 2015 and 2017 (BSA 2014-A, BSA 2014-B, BSA 2015-A, BSA 2015-B, BSA 2017-A and BSA 2017-B), which have different terms and conditions as set out below.

 

Underlying shares. The securities to which our BSA give right are new ordinary shares of our Company. The number of ordinary shares to which each BSA 2014-A, BSA 2014-B, BSA 2015-A and BSA 2015-B gives right is one point zero three (1.03) new ordinary share. The number of ordinary shares to which each BSA 2017-A and BSA 2017-B gives right is one (1) new ordinary share.

 

The number of ordinary shares to which each BSA gives right can be adjusted, upwards or downwards, as a result of certain corporate transactions, such as rights issues.

 

Standard terms. Our BSA are exercisable by tranches of a minimum of 2,000 BSA, or a multiple thereof, with an exception for any outstanding balance of unexercised BSA under 2,000.

 

The BSA 2014-A and BSA 2014-B have been issued at a price of €0.01 and at an exercise price of €23.50 per BSA.

 

The BSA 2015-A and BSA 2015-B have been issued at a price of €0.01 and at an exercise price of €35.95 per BSA.

 

The BSA 2017-A and BSA 2017-B have been issued at a price of €2.00 and at an exercise price of €19.97 per BSA.

 

Exercise periods. The exercise periods of our BSA plans are:

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
Exercise period
    
	
BSA 2014-A
    	
 
    	
November 1, 2014 to   September 30, 2018 (1)
    
	
BSA 2014-B
    	
 
    	
March 1, 2015 to   February 28, 2019
    
	
BSA 2015-A
    	
 
    	
June 1, 2015 to   May 31, 2019
    
	
BSA 2015-B
    	
 
    	
December 1, 2015 to   November 30, 2019
    
	
BSA 2017-A
    	
 
    	
July 1, 2018 to   June 30, 2022
    
	
BSA 2017-B
    	
 
    	
July 16, 2018 to   July 15, 2022
    


 




(1)    On September 30, 2018, all BSA 2014-A have become void.

 

If a BSA has not been exercised at the end of its exercise period, it becomes void.

 

1
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.19




2019 BASE SALARY TABLE FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS


The 2019 annual base salaries of the following Named Executive Officers of Ameren Corporation (“Ameren”), Union Electric Company (“UE”) and Ameren Illinois Company (“AIC”) (which officers are  employed by Ameren and/or an Ameren subsidiary as of February 14, 2019, and were determined to the extent applicable by reference to the Ameren Proxy Statement and the UE and AIC Information Statements for the 2019 annual meetings of shareholders and by reference to the definition of “Named Executive Officer” in Item 402(a)(3) of SEC Regulation S-K) are as follows: 


	
				
	Name, Position and Entities for which Officer is a Named Executive Officer
	2019 Base Salary
	


	Warner L. Baxter
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer – Ameren 
(Ameren, UE, AIC)
	

	$1,200,000
	


	Martin J. Lyons, Jr.
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer – Ameren, UE and AIC 
(Ameren, UE, AIC)


	

	$705,000
	


	Michael L. Moehn
Chairman and President – UE
(Ameren, UE)


	

	$580,000
	


	Richard J. Mark
Chairman and President – AIC
(Ameren, AIC)


	

	$539,000
	


	Gregory L. Nelson
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and  Secretary – Ameren, UE and AIC
(Ameren, UE, AIC)


	

	$520,000
	


	Fadi M. Diya
Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer – UE
(UE)


	

	$515,000
	


	Bhavani Amirthalingam
Senior Vice President & Chief Digital Information Officer – Ameren Services Company 
(AIC)
	

	$412,000
Edwin REYES, Appellant, v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION and Phoenix Air Conditioning, LLC, Appellees.

No. 1D17-2023

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit








SECOND AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Second Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is dated effective January 1, 2019 and amends the Employment Agreement by and between Umpqua Holdings Corporation (“Umpqua”) and Neal McLaughlin (“Officer”) dated as of March 5, 2008 (as previously amended, the “Employment Agreement”).


1.    PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT AND DURATION OF AGREEMENT.  


1.1    The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the term of the Employment Agreement, which is set to expire December 31, 2018, and to amend certain provisions of the Employment Agreement as set forth below.


1.2    The duration of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and extended to December 31, 2019, unless sooner terminated as set forth in the Employment Agreement.


2.    SEVERANCE. The first sentence of Section 9 of the Employment Agreement is amended to change the Severance Benefit and is replaced with the following: “In the event of Termination Without Cause or Termination for Good Reason, in addition to receiving Earned Compensation, Officer will receive a severance benefit equal to twelve months Base Salary (the ‘Severance Benefit’).”


3.    CHANGE IN CONTROL.  The second sentence of Section 10 of the Employment Agreement is amended to change the period over which the Change in Control Benefit is paid and is replaced with the following: “Subject to Section 12.3 below, the Change in Control Benefit shall be paid in equal installments over eighteen months, starting on the next regular payday following termination.”


4.    TRADE SECRETS. The following provision is added to Section 17 of the Agreement:


“NOTICE OF IMMUNITY UNDER THE ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1996, AS AMENDED BY THE DEFEND TRADE SECRETS ACT OF 2016: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement: (A) Officer will not be held criminally or civilly liable under any federal or state trade secret law for any disclosure of a trade secret that is made: (1) in confidence to a federal, state, or local government official, either directly or indirectly, or to an attorney and solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law; or (2) in a complaint or other document that is filed under seal in a lawsuit or other proceeding; and (B) if Officer files a lawsuit for retaliation by Umpqua for reporting a suspected violation of law, Officer may disclose Umpqua’s trade secrets to Officer’s attorney and use the trade secret information in the court proceeding if Officer (1) files any document containing the trade secret under seal; and (2) does not disclose the trade secret, except pursuant to court order.”


5.    EFFECT OF AMENDMENT.  Except as specifically set forth herein, the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect as written.




1









6.    DEFINED TERMS.  Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment have the meanings set forth in the Employment Agreement.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS CORPORATION


By:    /s/ Sheri Burns
Title:    EVP/Chief People Officer


OFFICER


/s/ Neal McLaughlin    
Neal McLaughlin


2
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr. the Chief Executive Officer of
ReGen Biologics, Inc., the Company, has executed this certification in
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June
30, 2004, the Report. The undersigned hereby certifies 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 the
Company. Date: August 12, 2004
    
    /s/ Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr
Name: Gerald E. Bisbee, JrTitle: Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           Section 1350 Certification

Pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  ("Section  906"),  H. Douglas Saathoff, the Chief
Executive  Officer  of  Nighthawk  Systems,  Inc.  and  Daniel P. McRedmond, the
Principal  Accounting  and Financial Officer of Nighthawk Systems, Inc., certify
that  (i)  the  Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained
in  such  report  fairly  presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Nighthawk  Systems,  Inc

A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Nighthawk Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Nighthawk Systems,
Inc.  and  furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


Date:  April  18,  2005          /s/  H.  Douglas  Saathoff
                                 --------------------------------------
                                 H.  Douglas  Saathoff
                                 Chief  Executive  Officer

Date:  April  18,  2005          /s/  Daniel  P.  McRedmond
                                 --------------------------------------
                                 Daniel  P.  McRedmond
                                 Principal  Accounting  and  Financial  Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Gonzalez, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 626]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered October 25, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41⁄2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly admitted into evidence the glassine envelopes of heroin at issue, since the testimony of the undercover officer and of the members of his field team provided reasonable assurances of an unbroken chain of custody and also provided a reasonable assurance of the identity and unchanged condition of the narcotics *(see People v Julian,*41 NY2d 340 [1977]). Any discrepancies in the chain of custody, which concerned only the markings that the police added to the glassine envelopes, and not the appearance or integrity of the glassine envelopes themselves, went to the weight of the evidence, not to its admissibility.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.