alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Seth Miller *et al.*Executors, *versus*Jedediah Miller.

If the owner in severalty of woodland adjoining woodland owned in equal shares by himself and another as tenants in common, sells the wood standing on his several land and makes a lease to the purchaser to enable him to cut off the wood, and the purchaser by mistake cuts wood on the common land, the lessor is answerable to his co-tenant for a moiety of the money received by him for the wood cut on the common land.

If a tenant in common takes money for the common property, whether bv design nt mistake, he is answerable in *assumpsit*to his co-tenant

Assumpsit for money had and received.

Seth Miller, the plaintiff’s testator,

by whom the action was commenced, and the defendant, were tenants in common, in equal shares, of a wood-lot. The defendant likewise owned other woodland adjoining the land owned in common. The defendant sold the wood standing, in lots, to different purchasers, bounding each lot; and according to the evidence at the trial, the boundaries thus given and within which the several purchasers cut off the wood, included a portion of the common land. Leases of these lots were given to the purchasers of the wood, to enable them to cut off the wood. A verdict was found for the plaintiffs for half of tlje amount of the money which the defendant received for the wood which was cut on the land owned in common.*

*Eddy,*for the defendant,

moved for a new trial, on the ground of a mistake made by a witness, who testified that the leases were by parol; whereas it was now discovered that they were in writing; and it appeared that the lessees, in cutting *35wood on the common land, had gone beyond the boundary described in their leases, and so were answerable themselves as trespassers.

*Wood,*for the plaintiffs,

contended, that as the defendant received the money, he had ratified the doings of his lessees, and so was liable in this action.

*

 See the report of this case 7 Pick. 133.

*Per Curiam.*

We suppose the fact very likely to be true, that the defendant intended to confine the lessees to his own land, and that they went over the bounds by mistake ; but that is not material, for this is an action for money had and received by the defendant, brought to recover the proceeds of wood belonging to the plaintiffs’ testator. We think there can be no question, but that if there are two tenants in common, and one of them takes money for the common property, whether by design or mistake, he is answerable in *assumpsit*to his co-tenant.1

1

 See *Miller*v. Miller, 7 Pick. 136; *Bigelow*v. Jones, 10 Pick. 165; *Gwinnetk*v *Thompson,*ante, 32.

Putnam J.

dissented.

*Judgment according to verdict.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Isais MENDOZA-BARCENAS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50781 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Isais Mendoza-Barcenas, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Isaías1 Mendoza-Barcenas has moved 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). Mendoza-Barcenas 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 appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 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 precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. Mendoza-Barcenas’s first name is sometimes misspelled as "Isais.”
#### Baron BEMENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James G. COX and Greg Smith, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17225

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 18, 2017* San Francisco, California

Filed April 20, 2017

*492Brian Morris, Brian Morris, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Cameron Parks Vandenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney, AGNV — Office of the Nevada Attorney General(RENO), Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: D.W. NELSON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS,** Chief District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States Chief District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM***

Baron Bement appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) on his claim under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Bement also appeals the district court’s alternative holding, dismissal for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand.

The district court erred in granting summary judgment on a ground not raised in the Appellees’ initial motion because the district court did not give Bement “notice and a reasonable time to respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f); *see also Norse v. City of Santa Cruz,*629 F.3d 966, 972-73 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Bement was not required to invoke section 504 by name in his complaint. *See Johnson v. City of Shelby,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347, 190 L.Ed.2d 309 (2014) (per curiam).

The district court also erred in dismissing Bement’s section 504 claim for failure to state a claim without giving him the opportunity to amend his complaint. Absent a determination that the complaint “could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts,” the district court was required to grant leave to amend. *See, e.g., Doe v. United States,*58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

***

 phig disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          23,144
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,250
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    133,034
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           8,384
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             8,403
<LOANS>                                        241,532
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 447,572
<DEPOSITS>                                     382,372
<SHORT-TERM>                                    18,020
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,828
<LONG-TERM>                                      3,388
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,998
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,811
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 447,572
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,780
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,990
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   684
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,454
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,033
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,689
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,765
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      990
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,521
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,521
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,693
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.12
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,995
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,012
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,833
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      827
<RECOVERIES>                                       250
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,246
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,246
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXTR 8K - May 22, 2012 - EX 10.1






May 22, 2012
 
Jim Judson
 
Dear Jim: 
In connection with your resignation from Extreme Networks, Inc. effective June 29, 2012 (“Resignation Date”), we are confirming our agreement that you will continue to provide consulting, as needed, to the Company at a rate of $175.00 per hour for a minimum of two months after the Resignation Date.  Either you or the Company may elect to terminate the consulting relationship beyond the two month period at any time with 5 days prior written notice to the other party. 
 We want to again thank you for your services as Interim Chief Financial Officer and for the contributions you made to Extreme Networks. 


Sincerely, 
 
	
	
	EXTREME NETWORKS INC.

	/s/ Diane Honda

	Diane Honda
Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary








 
I agree to provide consulting to Extreme Networks, Inc. on the terms set forth in above.  
 
	
					
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ James T. Judson
	 
	 
	  
	5/22/2012

	Jim Judson
	 
	 
	  
	Date
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio MCNEELY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6512

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 29, 2017

Antonio McNeely, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin M. Block, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Christopher M. Mason, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

*660Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Antonio McNeely appeals the district court’s order granting reconsideration of the court’s prior order denying McNeely’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion and reducing McNeely’s sentence pursuant to Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. *See United States v. McNeely,*No. 1:11-cr-00114-CCB-21 (D. Md. Mar. 23, 2017). We deny McNeely’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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*

*

 Although the district court ultimately granted McNeely's § 3582(c)(2) motion, the reduction granted by the court did not reduce McNeely's sentence to the full extent he requested.
EX-35 (a)
(logo) GMAC Mortgage

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

MSM06-15XS


The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby
certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the
   Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under
   the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
   all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all
   material respects throughout such period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 6th
day of March 2007.


By:     /s/Anthony N. Renzi
Name:   Anthony N. Renzi
Title:  Executive Vice President


GMAC Mortgage, LLC
500 Enterprise Road
Horsham, PA 19044

www.gmacmortgage.com
VERITAS SOFTWARE
                              FINANCIAL AGREEMENT
                                November 4, 1999


The following  software  products will be offered to  WordCruncher  for purchase
through the following financial agreement between the parties: WordCruncher, IBS
and Veritas.  This agreement will be in effect upon software order placement and
will conclude upon final payment made by WordCruncher.

1.   Veritas  Software  products to be purchased for $60,830.25.  Please see the
     IBS Quotation WCVTS-01 dated 11/4/99.

2.   WordCruncher  will be  extended a 40-day net  purchase  arrangement  on the
     transaction. WordCruncher has the option of paying any amount of money upon
     order. The total amount payable on the invoice after the 40-day period will
     carry a 1-% carry fee per 30-day period.

3.   WordCruncher may elect to pay the 1-% carry charge for a six-month  period.
     On or before the 6th month, the total amount of the invoice must be paid in
     full.

4.   This transaction is final upon order.


     /s/ illegible
     11/4/99
# Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali C 19A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0987
  doi:10.3000/19770987.CA2014.019.mlt |
| --- | --- |
| Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali
  tal-Unjoni Ewropea | C 19A |
| | |
| Edizzjoni bil-Malti | Informazzjoni u Avviżi | Volum 5722ta' Jannar 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0987

doi:10.3000/19770987.CA2014.019.mlt

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali

tal-Unjoni Ewropea

C 19A

Edizzjoni bil-Malti

Informazzjoni u Avviżi

Volum 5722ta' Jannar 2014

---

| Avviż Nru | Werrej | Paġna |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avviżi |
| | PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI |
| | L-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Mediċini |
| 2014/C 019A/01 | Avviż ta' tħassir | 1 |

Avviż Nru

Werrej

Paġna

V   Avviżi

PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI

L-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Mediċini

2014/C 019A/01

Avviż ta' tħassir

1

REVIŻJONI TAL-ĠU C A KOMPETIZZJONI

Hawn taħt għandek issib il-lista ta' C A ppubblikati matul din is-sena.

Ħlief meta indikat mod ieħor, il-Ġurnali Uffiċjali huma ppubblikati fil-lingwi kollha.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |

5

6

11

19

| MT | |
| --- | --- |

MT

---

V Avviżi

PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI

L-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Mediċini

| 22.1.2014 | MT | Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea | CA 19/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2014

MT

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

CA 19/1

---

Avviż ta' tħassir

(2014/C 19 A/01)

L-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Mediċini ddeċidiet li tħassar dawn il-proċeduri ta' għażla:

| — | EMA/CA/S/039: Persunal Kuntrattwali (fuq perjodu qasir), Sorveljanza Ewropea tal-Konsum tal-Antimikrobiċi għal Użu Veterinarju (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1)
  , |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/039: Persunal Kuntrattwali (fuq perjodu qasir), Sorveljanza Ewropea tal-Konsum tal-Antimikrobiċi għal Użu Veterinarju (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1)
  ,

| — | EMA/CA/S/040: Persunal Kuntrattwali (fuq perjodu qasir), Segretarjat Xjentifiku għall-Opinjonijiet tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea dwar Reżistenza għall-Antimikrobiċi, Dipartiment tal-Mediċini Veterinarji (FG IV) (2)
  . |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/040: Persunal Kuntrattwali (fuq perjodu qasir), Segretarjat Xjentifiku għall-Opinjonijiet tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea dwar Reżistenza għall-Antimikrobiċi, Dipartiment tal-Mediċini Veterinarji (FG IV) (2)
  .

---

(1)  ĠU C 320 A, 6.11.2013, p. 2.

(2)  Ara n-nota ta' qiegħ il-paġna 1.

---
#### Denis Murphy, App’lt, v. The Board of Education in the City of Yonkers, Resp’t.

*John F. Brennan,*for app’lt; *J. Hampden Dougherty,*for resp’t.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 25 N. Y. State Rep., 154.
SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
 EXHIBIT 32.2
  Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended March 31, 2011 (this "report"), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the "registrant"), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:
  1.           The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
  2.           The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.
    /s/ James R. Segreto

James R. Segreto

Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and

Secretary



May 10, 2011
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SPAR Group, Inc. and will be retained by SPAR Group, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
           Ex-4
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11


                               GALEY & LORD, INC.
                       STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF
                               PER SHARE EARNINGS


Computation of Average Shares Outstanding (In Thousands):


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                                 Three Months Ended
                                                                            Dec. 28, 1996    Dec. 30, 1995
<S>                                                                            <C>               <C>   
Average Common Shares Outstanding                                              11,576            11,762

Add Dilutive Options                                                              289               248
                                                                             --------          --------

Primary Average Shares                                                         11,865            12,010

Incremental Shares Arising from Full
     Dilution Assumption                                                           62                 0
                                                                             --------          --------

Average Shares Assuming Full Dilution                                          11,927            12,010

</TABLE>
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare
Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended September 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                         |  |                                      
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: November 18, 2009 |  | /s/ David Fitzgerald                 
|                         |  | David Fitzgerald                     
|                         |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of the written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jedediah STOUT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4139

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 26, 2017

Filed: October 31, 2017

David R. Mercer, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Springfield, MO (Laine Cardarella, Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.

James J. Kelleher, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, for appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jedediah Stout directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to arson and other offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the sub*590stantive reasonableness of Stout’s prison term and the propriety of a restitution order.

Upon careful review,2 we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, *see United States v.*Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness), and that the court did not err in ordering. restitution, *see*18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c) (authorizing restitution). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

2

. We decline to enforce an appeal waiver in Stout's plea agreement. *See United States v. Boneshirt,*662 F.3d 509, 515-16 (8th Cir. 2011).