alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GAISOA, et al., Plaintiffs v. TIUMALU, et al., Defendants

No. 5-1909

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Poata”, “Saumaleato”, “Matamalu” and “Filoa” in Fagatogo]

August 9, 1910

H. M. T. PEARCE, Chaplain, U.S.N., *Senior Member;*J. L. DWYER, *Associate Member;*and MAUGA, Associate *Member*

DECISION

In this case plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of four pieces of land situate in the village of Fagatogo, viz., Poata, Saumaleato, Matamalu and Filoa, complained that they were ordered off the lands by defendants, and asserted that defendants had no right to the lands whatsoever.

At the beginning of this trial, defendants offered in evidence the decision and decree of the High Court in the case of *Tiumalu v. Fuimaono,*1 A.S.R. 17 (1901) (evidently the first case entered in this Court), showing that the ownership of all of the lands in dispute had been passed upon shortly after the establishment of this Government. The last paragraph of the decision reads:—

> *230“The Court is satisfied after consideration of the premises that Tiumalu is the owner of the land Poata, Saumaleato, Fualalo, Aga, Malaloa and Filoa and is entitled to possession of said lands as prayed for and which lands were mutually agreed by the parties to be included in the Decree of the Court. Judgment is entered up for Tiumalu in terms of the foregoing.”

Upon the introduction of this decision plaintiffs then charged that the names of the above lands were fraudulently included in the issue by Tiumalu Faigata (deceased) holder of the name Tiumalu at the time of the trial.

The testimony offered by plaintiffs failed to bear out this contention. The records of the Court show that the lands were mentioned repeatedly in the trial, and the testimony of Fuimaono (one of the unsuccessful defendants in the previous trial) was especially untrustworthy, as he was the only witness for plaintiffs who was present at the reading of the above decision, and in this case he testified that he did not know that the case in which he was interested involved lands other than “Lotomua”.

In this world of uncertainty the gradual progress of civilization tends to eliminate uncertainties, and one of the blessings of civilization is stability of land titles. A landowner, holding an unqualified decree of a competent court setting forth that after a proper trial he was awarded title to the land, will not be disturbed in his possession after a lapse of many years, unless extraordinary circumstances are shown justifying exceptional action by another Court. Let it be understood that when the High Court issues a decree, this document means exactly what it says.

Whatever rights of possession or cultivation the ancestors of Gaisoa may have had on the lands in dispute, these rights were entirely extinguished by the possession and assertion of title by Tiumalu and the confirmation of Tiumalu’s title by formal decree of the High Court.

Forasmuch, therefore, as plaintiffs have failed to pro*231duee evidence substantiating their charges of fraud, their complaint is DISMISSED.

Costs of Court have been assessed in the sum of Twenty Dollars to be paid by plaintiffs.
**Exhibit
      23**


CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-3 (No. 333-87329) and Form S-8 (No. 333-82085, 333-87313, 333-61634,
      333-61636, 333-122490 and 333-128382) of Pennsylvania Commerce Bancorp, Inc.
      of
      our reports dated March 13, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial
      statements, and the effectiveness of Pennsylvania Commerce Bancorp, Inc.’s
      internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K.








/s/
                Beard Miller Company LLPHarrisburg,
                PennsylvaniaMarch
                13, 2006
#### Travon THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron HOOPS, Sheriff official and individual capacity; et al., Defendants, and D. M. Bolot, Facility Administrator official and individual capacity; James Henning, Facility Chaplain official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55594

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*452Submitted September 26, 2017 *

October 4, 2017

Travon Thompson, Apple Valley, CA, pro se.

James H. Thebeau, Esquire, Deputy County Counsel, San Bernardino, CA, Defendant-Appellee.

Before: .SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM *

Travon Thompson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his right to free exercise of religion during his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Thompson failed to challenge the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants, or any other district court order, and therefore Thompson waived any such challenge. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[Ajrguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 23.1













CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements Nos.
333-114496  and  333-121039 on Form S-3, and Nos.  333-105974,  333-116014,  and
333-122716  on Form S-8 of our  report,  dated  March 25,  2004,  (which  report
expresses an unqualified  opinion and includes an explanatory  paragraph for the
adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.143,  "Accounting for
Asset Retirement  Obligations")  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Gasco Energy, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004.



Denver, Colorado
March 14, 2005
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2033
ROBERT TILSON MORLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Broughton Hospital; H. DAVID BRUTON, M.D., Secretary; SETH P. HUNT, JR.; MICHAEL ORNDOFF, Defendants - Appellees, and KEVIN KILBRIDE, M.D.; RANDALL LAY, M.D., each in his official and individual capacity, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-250-1-C) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 19, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Robert Tilson Morley, Appellant Pro Se. Donna B. Wojcik, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Morgantown, North Carolina; Dorothy Powers, NORTH CAROLINA DE PARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Robert Tilson Morley appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Morley v. North Carolina Dep’t of Human Res. , No. CA-00-250-1-C (W.D.N.C. July 31, 2002). 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
First Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 HOSSEIN FATEH 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 

TO 

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “First Amendment”) is dated as of May 21, 2012, by and between DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc., a
Maryland corporation (the “Company”), DF Property Management LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “LLC”), and Hossein Fateh (the “Executive”). 

A. The Company, the LLC and the Executive are parties to a Second Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (the “Original
Agreement”), dated as of December 1, 2011. 
 B. The parties desire to amend the Original Agreement to make
certain revisions to the definition of “Good Reason”. 
 Accordingly, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

1. Section 6.5 of the Original Agreement is hereby amended to remove clause (v) from the definition of “Good Reason”.

 2. Unless specifically modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall remain in effect.








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed their names as of the day and year first
above written. 
  

							
	DUPONT FABROS TECHNOLOGY, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Mark L. Wetzel

	Name:	 	Mark L. Wetzel
	Title:	 	 Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
 Officer and Treasurer

	
	DF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC
		
	By:	 	 DuPont Fabros Technology, L.P.,
 its Managing Member

			
		 	By:	 	 DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc.,
 its General Partner

				
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Mark L. Wetzel

		 		 	Name:	 	Mark L. Wetzel
		 		 	Title:	 	Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
	
	 /s/ Hossein Fateh

	Hossein Fateh
Exhibit 10.33















May 28,
2009








Donald
Walker


521
Railroad Avenue


Fairfield,
California 94533





Re: Amendment to Employment
Agreement





Dear
Donnie:





This
letter shall serve as an amendment to the employment agreement effective as of
February 1, 2007 between Employee and Employer (the “Agreement”). Capitalized
terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the
Agreement.  Section 4.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and
replaced in its entirety with the following:





“4.1.  Employer
shall pay to Employee an annual salary (the “Salary”) of One Hundred Sixty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($165,000.00), payable in equal installments at the end of such
regular payroll accounting periods as are established by Employer, or in such
other installments upon which the parties hereto shall mutually agree, and in
accordance with Employer’s usual payroll procedures, but no less frequently than
monthly.”





The
foregoing amendment shall be effective as of May 1, 2009.




WPCS International
      IncorporatedBy:
              /s/ Andrew
      HidalgoBy:  Andrew
      Hidalgo
                Title:  Chief
      Executive Officer




Accepted
to and agreed this


28th day
of May , 2009:







/s/
      Donald WalkerDonald
      Walker
#### Isabel Estaban GAMEZ-VALENZUELA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71247

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

OCTOBER 3, 2017

Matthew Harrison Green, Esquire, Law Offices of Matthew H. Green, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner.

James A. Hurley, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

**

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

MEMORANDUM *

Isabel Estaban Gamez-Valenzuela, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Go v. Holder,*640 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Gamez-Valenzuela’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured .by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. *See id.*at 1054 (country reports and testimony insufficient to compel conclusion that petitioner was more likely than not to be tortured).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
##### 



UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 Form 10-K/A
 Amendment No. 2
to
 þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the transition period from            to
 Commission file number: 000-26659
 Move, Inc.
 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)
 Delaware(State or Other Jurisdiction of 
Incorporation or Organization)
    
    95-4438337(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)30700 Russell Ranch Road 
Westlake Village, California(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    91362(Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code:
(805) 557-2300
 Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
 Title of each class
Common Stock, par value $.001 per share 
Warrants to purchase Common Stock, par value $.001 per share
    
    Name of each exchange on which registered
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
 Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
 
 þ o
 o þ
 þ o
 þ
  Large Accelerated Filer o
    
    Accelerated Filer þ
    
    Non-Accelerated Filer o
 o þ
 Aggregate market value of voting common stock held by non-affiliates
of the registrant as of June 30, 2006*
    
    $
    658,409,500Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of September 30, 2006
    
    
    152,278,935




---



##### 



EXPLANATORY NOTE
  1




---



##### 



PART IV
 Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules
 Exhibits
  SIGNATURES
  MOVE, INC.By:
    /s/ LEWIS R. BELOTE, IIILewis R. Belote, IIIChief Financial Officer 2




---



##### 



INDEX TO EXHIBITS
 Number
    
    Exhibit Title31.01
    
    Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.31.02
    
    Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.32.02
    
    Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
 E-1
EXHIBIT
10.68
 
  
   JOB TITLE:
    
    Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Move, Inc.START DATE:
    
    October 5, 2006SUPERVISOR:
    
    Michael Long, CEOANNUAL SALARY:
    
    $275,000 effective as of December 1, 2006 (existing
base salary of $220,000 to remain in place until
December 1, 2006)BONUS:
    
    Performance bonus of up to 100% of your
annual salary at target for 2007; existing 2006 bonus structure pro-rated for
2006 (see below)RESTRICTEDSTOCK UNITS:
    
    200,000 units (see below)STOCK OPTIONS:
    
    300,000 stock option shares (see below)VACATION:
    
    Four Weeks (20 days) per anniversary yearLOCATION:
    
    The Companys offices in Westlake Village, CaliforniaEMPLOYMENT STATUS:
    
    Exempt, Regular-Full Time Employee




---



##### 



I have read and understand the terms of this offer and consent to all of the terms and provisions
contained herein.
 Name
    
    /s/ James S. Caulfield
    
    Date 10/5/06James S. Caulfield
   2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6488 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6488

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain tax 
   benefits related to empowerment zones to the District of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 28, 2023

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain tax 
   benefits related to empowerment zones to the District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TREATED AS EMPOWERMENT ZONE.

    (a) In General.--Section 1391(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following: ``There shall be 
treated as an empowerment zone designated under this section so much of 
the District of Columbia as would result in the largest area within 
such District meeting the eligibility requirements for designation 
under section 1391. Deemed treatment under the preceding sentence shall 
not be taken into account in determining the number of empowerment 
zones which may be designated under this section.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to periods beginning after December 31, 2023.
                                 <all>
```
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42012 1976HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42013 1976HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42014 1976HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42015 1976HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42016 1976HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42017 1976HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42018 1976HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42019 1976HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42020 1976HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42021 1976HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42022 1976HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42023 1976HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42024 1976HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42025 1976HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42026 1976HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42027 1976
Exhibit 32.1  Pacific WebWorks, Inc.  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned officer of Pacific WebWorks, Inc. certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  * the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  * the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Date:   March 29, 2007 /s/ Kenneth W. Bell ____________________________________ Kenneth W. Bell Chief Executive Officer Principal Financial Officer
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JOSEPH M. BRISTER

NO. 2021 KW 1436

JANUARY 31, 2022

In Re; Joseph M. Brister, applying for supervisory writs, 

22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, 

No. 395, 328. 

BEFORE: MCDONALD, ZANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

JMM

WIL

EW

COURT OF A EAL, F RST CIRCUIT

L

DEPUTY" CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 15.1

                     INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
NCS HealthCare, Inc. and Subsidiaries


We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of NCS
HealthCare, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of March 31, 1999, and the
related condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and
nine-month periods ended March 31, 1999 and 1998, and the condensed
consolidated statements of cash flows for the nine month periods ended March 31,
1999 and 1998. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, which will be performed
for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion regarding the
financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements referred
to above for them to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of NCS HealthCare, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of June 30, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended, not
presented herein, and in our report dated August 6, 1998, we expressed an
unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion,
the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of June 30, 1998 is fairly stated, in all material respects, in
relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


Cleveland, Ohio                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
May 14, 1999
EXHIBIT 21.1




                       Pivotal Corporation - Subsidiaries
                      ------------------------------------

Name of Subsidiary                                        Jurisdiction of
------------------                                         Incorporation
                                                         ------------------
Pivotal Corporation                                       Washington

Pivotal Corporation Limited                               U.K.

Pivotal Corporation France S.A.                           France

Exactium Ltd.                                             Israel

Exactium, Inc.                                            Delaware

590813 British Columbia Ltd.                              British Columbia

590822 British Columbia Ltd.                              British Columbia

Pivotal Corporation Ireland                               Ireland

Pivotal Technologies Corporation Limited                  Ireland

Pivotal Corporation (N.I.) Limited                        Northern Ireland

Pivotal GmbH                                              Germany

Digital Conversations Inc.                                British Columbia

Pivotal Corporation Australia Pty Ltd.                    Australia

Nihon Pivotal K.K.                                        Japan

Project One Business Technologies Inc.                    British Columbia

Inform, Inc.                                              Ontario
#### SKILLSURVEY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. CHECKSTER LLC, Defendant-Appellee

2016-1994

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 6, 2017

Richard Charles Pettus, Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Jonathan D. Ball.

Michael John Sacksteder, Fenwick *&*West, LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Adam Michael Lewin, Laurence F. Pul-gram.

(Taranto, Schall, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.