alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hollibut Herrick *versus*Andrew Richardson.

A return of an execution by the officer that the judgment debtor had enlisted as a soldier in the service of the *United States,*is not sufficient to charge the bail.

This was a writ of *scire facias*against the defendant as bail of one *David Herrin.*The parties agreed that the defendant became bail as charged in this action; that the plaintiff recovered judg*218ment, and sued out his execution against *Herrin;*which execution was delivered to a deputy sheriff on the 23d of December, 1812; that, on the 15th of February, 1813, *Herrin*was duly enlisted as a soldier in the service of the *United States,*and has ever since so continued; and that, on the 23d of March, 1813, the deputy sheriff made his return upon the execution that he had made diligent search for the property of the said *Herrin,*and could find none; and *that he found the body, not until after he had enlisted into the*[ * 235 ] United States *service, and being a** *soldier in the said service, he could not, by the laius of the*United States, *commit him;*wherefore he returned the execution in no part satisfied.

If, in the opinion of the Court upon these facts, the defendant was chargeable as bail, he was to be defaulted; otherwise the plaintiff was to become nonsuit.

*Rice*and *Warren,*for the defendant.

Bail are answerable only upon a return of *non est inventus*by the officer. (1) Here is no such return. The principal was found, and the officer should have seized him, according to the exigence of his writ. (2)

*Boutell,*for the plaintiff.

The officer’s return is *tantamount*to *non est inventus.*The laws of the *United States*forbade the seizure of the body. It was in the power of the bail to prevent the enlistment of his principal. He was his keeper, and should have kept him in such manner as to have him forthcoming upon execution, or at farthest, now, upon the return of the *scire facias.*(3)

(1)

*Stat.*1784, c. 10.

(2)

*Highmore on*Bail, 75. — 1 Burr. 339, *Bond*vs. *Isaac*

(3)

8 *Mass. Rep.*264, *Parker*vs. Chandler.

*Per Curiam.*

The return of the officer is not *non est inventus;*nor sufficient to charge the bail. Let the plaintiff be called, *(a)*

*Plaintiff nonsuit.*

*219CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT, IN THE COUNTY OF LINCOLN, JUNE TERM, 1814, AT WISCASSET. PRESENT: Hon. SAMUEL SEW ALL, Chief Justice. Hon. GEORGE THATCHER,) Hon. ISAAC PARKER, > Justices Hon. DANIEL DEWEY, )

(a)

 Vide *Sayward & Al.*vs. Conant, ante, 146, and note.
CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SUBSECTION 1350

                              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  Prime  Air,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of  the  undersigned  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

(1)  The  Report  fully  complies  with  the  requirements  of  section 13(a)
     or  15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

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


Dated  December  5,  2003            /s/  Wayne  Koch
                                   ------------------------------------
                                   Wayne  Koch
                                   Director  and
                                   Chief  Financial  Officer
                                   (Principal  Financial  Officer)


<PAGE>
#### Michael FOLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michelle PONT, an individual; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-16774

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 21, 2017

Michael Foley, Pro Se

Edward Boyack, Esquire, Attorney, The Doyle Firm, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Michelle Pont

J. Stephen Peek, Attorney, Holland & Hart LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees Jeffrey Pont, AP Express, AP Express Worldwide

Timothy Baldwin, Attorney, Stephanie A. Barker, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County District Attorney’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Georgina Stuart

Michael Dorantes, Pro Se

Brenda Dorantes, Pro Se

Toni Ann Iantuono, Pro Se

Patricia Foley, Pro Se

Dino Iantuono, Pro Se

Christine M. Kelleher, Kelleher & Kelle-her, LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees John T. Kelleher, Nikki Dupree, Kelleher & Kelleher

*651Josh Cole Aicklen, Esquire, David Brian Avakian, Attorney, Lewis Brisbois Bis-gaard *&*Smith, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Shera Bradley

James E. Smyth, Esquire, Attorney, Ka-empfer Crowell Renshaw Gronauer & Fiorentino, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Manuel Carranza

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Foley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Ghazali v. Moran,*46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Foley’s action for failure to prosecute in accordance with local rules because, after Foley failed to file documents in the district court for more than 270 days, he failed to respond timely to the district court’s notice to take action. *See*D. Nev. Civ. R. 41-1 (permitting dismissal after notice of actions that span 270 days without any proceeding of record); *Ghazali,*46 F.3d at 53 (discussing factors to guide the court’s evaluation of dismissal for failure to comply with local rules).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we do not consider Foley’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. *See Al-Torki v. Kaempen,*78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1996) (“[Ijnterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute[.]”).

Appellees AP Express, AP Express Worldwide, LLC, and Jeffery Pont’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 9), and Foley’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his reply brief, are granted.

Appellee Bradley’s request for sanctions, set forth in her answering brief, is denied without prejudice.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Form of Amendment Number 1 to  Employee Stock Ownership Plan



 Exhibit 10.54 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 
 CORSAIR COMPONENTS, INC. 

EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN 
 Pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of the Corsair Components, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Corsair Memory, Inc. does hereby amend said Plan as follows: 

Section 2:          The definition of “Company” is deleted and replaced with
“Corsair Memory, Inc., a Delaware corporation.” 
 Section 2:          Under
the definition of “Employer” the wording “Corsair Components, Inc., a Delaware corporation” is deleted and replaced with “Corsair Memory, Inc., a Delaware corporation.” 

Section 22:        All references to “CORSAIR COMPONENTS, INC.” should be replaced with
“CORSAIR MEMORY, INC.” 
 This Amendment to said Plan shall be effective as of January 1, 2011. 

 

							
		 		 	 CORSAIR MEMORY, INC.

				
	Date May             , 2012	 		 	 By
	 	  

		 		 		 	  

		 		 		 	 (Print Name and Title)
Lithium Exploration Group, Inc.: Exhibit 10.1 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






AMENDMENT TO THE SECURITIES 
PURCHASE
AGREEMENT
OF 
LITHIUM EXPLORATION GROUP, INC.

     This Amendment to the Securities
Purchase Agreement of Lithium Exploration Group, Inc. (this
“Amendment”) is made as of the May 15, 2012, by and between
Lithium Exploration Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
“Company”), and Hagen Investments Ltd. (“Holder”).
Capitalized terms defined in this Amendment and not otherwise defined herein
shall have the same meanings as ascribed to them in the Securities Purchase
Agreement of Lithium Exploration Group, Inc. (the “SPA”), issued
by the Company to Holder on March 28, 2012.

     WHEREAS, the Company and Holder
have determined to amend the SPA to set the exercise price of the Warrant to
$0.45 per share (subject to adjustment as provided in the Warrant); 

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual covenants contained in this Amendment, and for other good and
valuable consideration the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby
acknowledged, the undersigned agree as follows:

	 	1. 	
      Article 2.2, subparagraph (a), subsection (iv) of the SPA
      is hereby amended and replaced with the following:



     (iv) a Warrant registered in the
name of the Purchaser, with an exercise price of $0.45 per share subject to
adjustment as provided in the Warrant, to purchase up to a number of shares of
Common Stock equal to 100% of the Purchaser’s Subscription Amount divided by the
conversion price of the Debenture, set at $0.45 per share; and

	 	2. 	
      Except as amended hereby, the SPA remains in force and
      effect.

	 	 	 
	 	3. 	
      This Amendment may be executed in counterparts that,
      together, shall have the same effect as if all parties signed this
      Amendment on the same signature page.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
hereto have caused this Amendment to the SPA to be duly executed by their
respective authorized signatories as of the date first indicated above.

	Lithium Exploration Group, Inc. 	 	Hagen Investments Ltd. 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Alexander Walsh	 	/s/ Hugh O’Neill
	Name: Alexander Walsh	 	Name: Hugh O’Neill
	Title: CEO	 	Title: President
**UNITED STATES**  **ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**  **AGENCY REGION**  **IX 75**  **Hawthorne Street**  **San Francisco,**  **CA 94105**  **September 30,**  **2016 Red**  **Mesa Chapter,**  **Navajo Nation**  **Reservation P.O.**  **Box 422**  **Montezuma Creek,**  **UT 84534**  **A TIN:**  **Minne John**  

### Subject: **Request to**  **retain public**  **documents at**  **the Red**  **Mesa Chapter**  **for public**  **inspection Dear**  **Ms. John:**  **The purpose**  **of this**  **letter is**  **to request**  **that the**  **Red Mesa**  **Chapter of** **the Navajo**  **Nation Reservation** **retain the**  **enclosed package**  **at the**  **library for**  **at least**  **sixty (60)**  **days for**  **public inspection.**  **The package**  **consists of** **documents related**  **to the**  **United States**  **Environmental Protection**  **Agency's final**  **decision on** **the Clean**  **Air Act**  **Prevention of** **Significant Deterioration**  **amendment permit**  **for the**  **McElmo Creek**  **Unit Oil**  **Production Facility**  **on the**  **Navajo Nation**  **Indian Reservation**  **near the**  **city of** **Aneth, San**  **Juan County,**  **Utah. We**  **would greatly**  **appreciate your**  **assistance for** **making these**  **documents available**  **to the**  **general public.**  **Please contact**  **me at**  **(415) 947-4156**  **or r9airpermits@epa.gov** **if you**  **have any**  **questions.**

**Enclosure Shaheerah**  **Kelly Environmental Engineer**  **Permits Office,**  **Air Division**
Order entered October 7, 2022

In the

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00378-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF I.A.F., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-12222

ORDER

Before Justices Molberg, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle

On the Court’s own motion, we WITHDRAW our October 3, 2022 opinion 

in this case and VACATE our judgment of that same date. A new opinion and 

judgment will issue in due course.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 01, 2022.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 01, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22A1318. DIANNELYS RAMIREZ v. CASEY JOHN MCCLURE.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion be hereby GRANTED, and 

jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.5

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          In connection with the Annual Report of Brookfield Properties
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Richard B. Clark, President and Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:

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.




                                  By: /s/ Richard B. Clark
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Name:  Richard B. Clark
                                      Title: President & Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 20, 2003
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6316 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 12, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to establish an 

expiration date of certain committee resolutions with respect to leases or projects, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6316 RFS

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AUTHORIZATIONS. 

2 Section 3307 of title 40, United States Code, is 

3 amended by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(i) EXPIRATION OF COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS.— 

5 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Unless a lease is awarded 

6 or a construction, alteration, repair, design, or ac7 quisition project is initiated not later than 5 years 

8 after the resolution approvals adopted by the Com9 mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

10 House of Representatives or the Committee on Envi11 ronment and Public Works of the Senate pursuant 

12 to subsection (a), such resolutions shall be deemed 

13 expired. 

14 ‘‘(2) APPLICATION.—This subsection shall only 

15 apply to resolutions approved after the date of en16 actment of this subsection.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 11, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Shawn W. WHITE & Kysha Tama Mordica, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Jeffrey D. FISHMAN, Trustee FOR the FMC PROFIT SHARING PLAN, a Trust, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3748

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 08, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The parties' joint stipulation for dismissal of appeal filed June 7, 2018, is treated as a notice of voluntary dismissal and is granted. This appeal is dismissed.
#### Gus Angelos et al., Copartners under the Name of The World Cafeteria, Respondents, *v.*William Mesevich, Individually and as President of the Cafeteria Employees Union, Local 302, et al., Appellants. Elias Tsakires et al., Copartners under the Name of The Cosmo Cafeteria, Respondents, *v.*William Mesevich, Individually and as President of Cafeteria Employees Union, Local 302, et al., Appellants.

Submitted May 25, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

Motions for a stay denied. Motions to amend the remittiturs granted. Return of remittiturs requested and when returned they will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon this appeal there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz: The defendants argued that the injunction granted herein violated the rights of freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. This court held the injunction aforesaid did not violate the rights of freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. (See 289 N. Y. 498, 507.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet, Statement of Operations, Statement of Cash Flows and Notes thereto
incorporated in this Form 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          31,363
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,036
<PP&E>                                          83,299
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (877)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 514,592
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          505,526
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       243,034
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   514,592
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               232,364
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (233,968)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (233,968)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 29, 2014

No. 04-13-00346-CR

Jassen BARNES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR9420

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Appellant’s brief was originally due on October 31, 2013. Appellant is represented on 

appeal by retained counsel, Ms. Suzanne M. Kramer. On November 4, 2013, this court notified 

Ms. Kramer, by letter, that the brief was late and instructed her to provide this court, within ten 

days of our letter, with a reasonable explanation for failing to timely file the brief. Ms. Kramer 

did not respond. Accordingly, on November 18, 2013, this court ordered Ms. Kramer to file 

appellant’s brief in this court no later December 2, 2013. Our order cautioned Ms. Kramer that if 

she did not file appellant’s brief by December 2, 2013, this cause would be abated for the trial 

court to conduct an abandonment hearing. Ms. Kramer did not respond.

Accordingly, on December 9, 2013, this court abated this appeal and remanded the case 

to the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether:

(1) appellant desires to prosecute his appeal;

(2) appellant has made the necessary arrangements for filing a brief; and

(3) counsel has abandoned the appeal.
The trial court has filed its findings of fact and determined appellant desires to prosecute 

the appeal and Ms. Kramer has not abandoned the appeal. Ms. Kramer stated on the record she 

would file appellant’s brief no later than January 13, 2014. The brief has not been filed and 

telephone calls from the Clerk of this court to Ms. Kramer have not been returned.

Accordingly, Ms. Kramer is hereby ORDERED to appear on February 12, 2014 at 2:00 

p.m. before a panel consisting of Justice Marion, Justice Barnard, and Justice Martinez, and 

show cause why she should not be held in civil and criminal contempt of this court and/or 

suspended from practice before this court for violating this court’s orders to timely file 

appellant’s brief.

Ms. Kramer is advised she has the right to be represented by counsel at the show cause 

hearing and that the proceedings will be recorded by a certified court reporter.

We further ORDER the Clerk of this court to have Ms. Kramer personally served with a 

copy of this order. We also Order the person who personally serves Ms. Kramer to file with this 

Court written proof of the date and time that Ms. Kramer was served with a copy of this order. 

The Clerk of this court shall also fax a copy of this order to the Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, 

presiding judge of the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of January, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court