alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CHAMBERS V. MORRIS.

*Ejectment*.

(Deicded May 20th, 1906.

42 South. 549.)

Appeal from Henry Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

*675P. A. McDaniel, for appellant.

William C. Oates, for appellee.

Affirmed.

Opinion by

Tyson, C. J.

Haralson, Simpson and Denson, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**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 theQuarterly Report of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert J. Stetson,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 
| /s/ Robert  J. Stetson   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Robert J.  Stetson       |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
| August 14,  2003         |

 

----
#### KOEHLER et al. v. CAMPBELL.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.

May 21, 1894.)

At chambers. Motion to punish defendant for contempt of court in interposing a false answer.

Granted.

LAWRENCE, J.

In this case, I am of the opinion that the defendant and his attorney were guilty of deceit in interposing a false answer; that the service of such answer impeded, if it did not defeat, the rights of the plain*1111tiffs; and that such service was a contempt of court, and is punishable accordingly. A fine in the sum of $832.91, the amount of the^ judgment, and the costs of this proceeding, which are fixed at the sum of $50, is therefore imposed upon each of the parties. Martin Cantine Co. v. Warshauer, 7 Misc. Rep. 412, 28 N. Y. Supp. 139.

Settle order on one day’s notice, in circuit (part 1).
EXHIBIT 23.1

                          Independent Auditor's Consent


We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the Registration
Statements  on  Form  S-8,  file  numbers 333-66340 and 333-111920 of our report
dated  March  31,  2003,  relating  to  the  financial  statements  of  NetView
Technologies,  Inc. appearing in the Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
2002.

                                      /s/Gerald R. Hendricks & Company, P.C.
Westminster, Colorado
November 5, 2004


<PAGE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40647 Summary Calendar

JOSE MEJIA, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-MC-2

-------------------- October 10, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges,
PER CURIAM: * Jose Mejia, federal prisoner # 67074-079, was convicted of conspiracy to possess over 1,000 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment. He appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Mejia argues that his indictment is constitutionally defective because it did not include an allegation of drugNo. 02-40647 -2- quantity, and that the district court thus had no jurisdiction to impose sentence in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Since Mejia filed his brief, this court rejected an identical argument in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 case in Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, Tx. , F.3d , (5th Cir. Sept. 5, 2002, No. 01-41000), 2002 WL 31006173 at * 2. The petitioner in
Wesson also argued that his indictment was defective under Apprendi because it did not allege a drug quantity, and that the district court was deprived of jurisdiction. Citing United
States v. Cotton , 122 S. Ct. 1781, 1785-86 (2002), United States v. Longoria , 298 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc), and United States v. Gonzalez , 259 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc), this court held that the petitioner’s claim that his defective indictment deprived the court of jurisdiction was meritless because defects in an indictment are nonjurisdictional. Wesson , 2002 WL 31006173 at * 2. Mejia argues that his Apprendi claim should be considered in this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 proceeding under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In Wesson , 2002 WL 31006173 at * 3, this court also rejected the petitioner’s savings clause argument, holding that the petitioner could not satisfy the first prong of ReyesRequena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001), because Apprendi is not retroactive on collateral review, citing UnitedNo. 02-40647 -3-
States v. Brown , F.3d , (5th Cir. Sept. 5, 2002, No. 01- 10116), 2002 WL 2027346 at * 6. For these reasons, the district court’s dismissal of Mejia’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is AFFIRMED, and amended to be with prejudice.
-T?^6^- FILEDINCOURTOFAPPEALS 12th Court cfAppeals District

• i AHR06|

TYLER 

### fipnl 3tdsO)<$- ft< 

### A/ife^1 on /)Txrc^ /0&-t3ioKt Also J-l *cpp^5 A5aai 3_ seM <\. 6b(M \6 VV^ caafV dfcrivnrtict/ _^pp9&fe. -teams* J- ^mm£^ VVia> coa^ uOhomx. VV frtoVftn 4V eaVengifri o-T i\v^ \o file VW motiVi 

### •-far -feteduiv^ bacV^ fcv\ We J^BT(Too/A <*CGiVfclfiUI Id

*W Vy^ GxVA c5>C (^psd*? Notour*? 3^ <JLx&~> Ccsa^^ (S^V- uJ^^kwn 3- ^HdoiJ^ "i>2<U V^e meMan Vo* 'X- >DeU*\>e \x\^ S^c \«? <T5^ N>ecoo^* IL '^eKVeAa*. Wo\ \o. Xa V3 tegCaas 

### 3d vp^ Vc.^kJ i OvO £ik W ccm*\ %/ gxtensfcn&£ A\\vv^ W ^ive_ >^Ve o\^VaA ^ Q^evvee^fivv^ \o AlvcKae/ VVeoL^e reg^or^ os& Crv^no

vj»^ u-e «\iu\\uv> :-*a.' -r— c/^'\A im \ "^v. 

## : 3 (j^J8<e/#toMi TioftcH u,u '
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Sugarcane Field Station: Canal Point, FL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Canal Point, Florida Sugarcane Field Station People & Locations







Billy Joe Cruz
                        Sugarcane Field Station

                        




                        
                        Laborer
                        Phone: (561) 924-5227
                        
                        
                        Fax: (561) 924-6109(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

LOUIS LILLIS and SHIRLEY LILLIS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

NATIONAL CREDIT ONION 

ADMINISTRATION BOARD, 

Defendant. 

PANNER, District Judge: 

No. 1:14-cv-867-CL 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke-filed a Report and 

Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 

O.S~C. § 636(b) (1) (B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (b). When either party 

objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and 

Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination 

of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 O.S.C. § 

636(b) (1) (C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., 

Inc., 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). 

1 - ORDER. 

Case 1:14-cv-00867-CL Document 32 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 2
Here, the parties object to the Report and Recommendation, so ,J 

I have reviewed this matter de novo. I agree with Magistrate 

Judge Clarke that Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of 

subject m?tter jurisdiction should be granted, and that Plaintiffs 

are not entitled to a stay pending exhaustion of administrative 

remedies. 

CONCLUSION 

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#26) is 

adopted. Defendant's motion to dismiss (#13) is granted and 

Plaintiffs' request for a stay (#14) is denied.· Plaintiffs' 

motion to settle the record (#30) is granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. , 

DATED this ~day of January, 2015. 

OWEN M. PANNER 

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

2 - ORDER 

Case 1:14-cv-00867-CL Document 32 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. 03 C 3904

v. )

) Judge Robert W. Gettleman

KEVIN TRUDEAU, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter came before the court for hearing on plaintiff Federal Trade Commission’s

(“FTC”) motion to modify the Receivership order (Doc. 744), the Receiver’s first report (Doc.

747), the Receiver’s supplemental report (Doc. 750), and for a report on status of this case. For

the reasons stated in open court, it is hereby ordered:

1. The court finds defendant Kevin Trudeau in contempt of this court’s order of July 26,

2013 (Doc. 729), as well as the receivership order of August 7, 2013 (Doc. 742), because

defendant has spent and transferred money for attorney’s fees that were not approved by the

court and for expenses that were far beyond ordinary and necessary living expenses. The court

further finds that defendant has not been fully cooperative or candid with the Receiver. As

ordered by the court on July 26, 2013, “Failure to comply fully with the directions contained in

this order will result in Trudeau’s immediate incarceration until such compliance is achieved.”

2. In light of the facts contained in the Receiver’s first and supplemental reports and

discussed at today’s hearing, as well as the long history of contemptuous conduct by defendant,

the court further finds that incarceration is necessary to coerce defendant to provide complete

and accurate information regarding the assets he possesses or controls to at least begin to satisfy
the June 2, 2010, order to pay $37.6 million as a remedial sanction for defendant’s prior

contempt of this court’s orders. The Receiver is directed to interview defendant as discussed at

today’s hearing.

3. The court directs the United States’ Marshal Service to take defendant Kevin Trudeau

into custody and to hold him until further order of the court, which will be entered tomorrow,

September 19, 2013, at a hearing scheduled to begin at 11:00 a.m. The Marshal and the

Metropolitan Correctional Center are directed to ensure that Mr. Trudeau is available to be

interviewed by a representative of the Receiver and its attorney, along with access to defendant’s

counsel, to allow defendant to demonstrate that he has or can purge himself of his contempt.

4. Defendant’s request for a stay of this order is denied.

ENTER: September 18, 2013

__________________________________________

Robert W. Gettleman

United States District Judge

2
Exhibit 99.2

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

I, Alan L. Hunte, President and Chief Financial Officer of LaSalle Re Holdings
Limited, hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that this Annual
Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d))
and that the information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly
represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of LaSalle Re Holdings Limited.

Date:  April 30, 2003


/s/ Alan L. Hunte
-------------------------------------
Alan L. Hunte
President and Chief Financial Officer


                                       72
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 150 (Monday, August 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 43559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16950]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; AD Risk Factors.
    Date: September 8, 2021.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Nijaguna Prasad, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 
National Institutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway 
Building, Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9667, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#214f484b4046544f400f515340524045614f48490f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eb8582818a8c9e858ac59b998a988a8fab858283c58c849d">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 4, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-16950 Filed 8-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Global Change and Photosynthesis Research: Urbana, IL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Urbana, Illinois Global Change and Photosynthesis Research People & Locations







Melissa  Stiefel
                        Global Change and Photosynthesis Research

                        




                        
                        Program Support Assistant (Office Automation)
                        Phone: (517) 353-0205
                        
                        
                        Fax: (517) 337-6782(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR 6 MONTHS ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRITY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          44,354
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  378,434
<ALLOWANCES>                                    76,500
<INVENTORY>                                    101,326
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               589,992
<PP&E>                                       1,597,054
<DEPRECIATION>                                 865,425
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,099,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          400,912
<BONDS>                                         26,904
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,723
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,678,276
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,099,354
<SALES>                                      1,103,648
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,140,078
<CGS>                                          797,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,276,367
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                18,116
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (136,289)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (53,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (83,289)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (83,289)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.5


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT


TO THE


GUIDELINES
AND PROCEDURES FOR


TDS
OFFICER BONUSES


 


WHEREAS,
Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. (“TDS”) adopted in 2007 and maintains
“Guidelines and Procedures for TDS Officer Bonuses,” which are written
guidelines and procedures for the determination of annual bonuses for certain
officers of TDS (the “Officer Bonus Guidelines”); and


 


WHEREAS,
TDS desires to amend the Officer Bonus Guidelines to comply with section 409A
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations
issued thereunder.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that effective for performance
years commencing on or after January 1, 2008, TDS hereby amends the
Officer Bonus Guidelines by replacing the last paragraph thereof with the following
new paragraphs:


 


Any bonus amount awarded
with respect to a performance year will be paid during the period commencing on
the January 1 immediately following the performance year and ending on the
March 15 immediately following the performance year.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event
that payment by such March 15th is administratively
impracticable and such impracticability was unforeseeable (in each case, such
that payment continues to qualify as a “short-term deferral” within the meaning
of section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code), payment will be made as soon as
administratively practicable after such March 15th, but in no
event later than the December 31 immediately following the performance
year.  Payment will be made in the form
of a lump sum.


 


The preceding simply are
guidelines.  Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary, 100% of the bonus is discretionary, and an officer shall have no
right or expectation with respect to any bonus until TDS has determined whether
a bonus will be paid for a performance year. 
The bonus is not earned by the officer, nor does the officer have a
legally binding right to the bonus, unless and until the bonus amount, if any,
is paid.


 

















 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, TDS has caused this First Amendment to the
Officer Bonus Guidelines to be executed by its President and Chief Executive
Officer and the members of its Compensation Committee as of this _____________
day of __________________________, 2008.


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  LeRoy T.
  Carlson, Jr.

  	
   

  	
  Gregory P. Josefowicz

  
	
  President and Chief
  Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  Member, Compensation
  Committee

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  George W. Off

  	
   

  	
  Christopher D. O’Leary

  
	
  Member, Compensation
  Committee

  	
   

  	
  Member, Compensation
  Committee

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Herbert S. Wander

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Member, Compensation
  Committee

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


2