alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### McFarland *v.*McFarland, executor.

June 25, 1915.

Appeal. Before Judge Wright. Walker superior court. June 19, 1914.

J. *E. Rosser*and *W. M. Henry,*for plaintiff.

*Sizer, Chambliss & Chambliss, B. M. W. Glenn,*and. *W. II. Payne,*for defendant.

Hill, J.

1. Where in a proceeding to probate a will in solemn form it appears that one of the requisite number of witnesses necessary to prove the will is inaccessible to the court, on account of non-residence in the State, proof of his handwriting may be resorted to, or his testimony taken by commission as in other cases. *Wells*v. *Thompson,*140 *Ga.*119 (78 S. E. 823, 47 L. R. A. *(N. S.)*722, 33 Ann. Cas. (1914C) 898) ; Civil Code (1910), § 3861.

2. In the absence of a statute requiring it, judgments of courts of general jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties need not have set forth therein the evidence upon which they are based. 11 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 957.

3. A motion to set aside a judgment of a court of or'dinary probating a will in solemn form, filed by an heir at law of the testator, on account of defects appearing upon the face of the judgment, the grounds of the motion being that “upon the hearing of said ease, as shown by said order and judgment of probate, . . the evidence of [one of the witnesses to the will] was not taken or heard by the court, and no effort was made to take his evidence, although he was in life and a resident of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and his evidence could have been taken witlr- ' out difficulty,” and “the said judgment and order shows no evidence before the court as to the signature of the” non-resident witness, is, in the absence of the pleadings or record before the court, upon the application of the foregoing principles, subject to demurrer.

4. The superior court, to which the case was appealed by agreement, did not err in sustaining a demurrer to the motion to set aside the judgment. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices 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, the undersigned officer of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:




(a)           the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010 the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(b)           information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.




Dated: March 31, 2011
/s/ Michael McGuinnessMichael G. McGuinnessPrincipal Executive Officer,Chief Operating and Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0235

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

SHELDON PATRICK TRACY,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 20, 2021 within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 16 2021

08/16/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0235
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7170

VERNON CHAPMAN,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ACTING WARDEN DAVID RICH,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at 

Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00306)

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernon Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7170 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Vernon Chapman, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Chapman’s 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm the district court’s order. Chapman v. Rich, No. 1:19-cv-00306 (S.D.W. Va. 

Sept. 30, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7170 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information derived from Kiddie Academy
International, Inc.'s audited financial statements for the year ended September
29, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements and the notes thereto.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                           1,232
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      128
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         90
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,225
<PP&E>                                           1,057
<DEPRECIATION>                                     300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,118
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                         572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,341
<SALES>                                          4,792
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,792
<CGS>                                            6,793
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,793
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    39
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  56
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,907)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,907)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,907)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.06)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15944]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[NPS-WASO-NHPA-32134; PPWONRADE2, PMP00EI05.YP0000]
RIN 1024-AE49


National Register of Historic Places; Withdrawal

AGENCY: National Park Service; Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The National Park Service withdraws the proposed rule that 
would have revised regulations governing the listing of properties in 
the National Register of Historic Places. The National Park Service no 
longer intends to prepare a final rule and has terminated the 
rulemaking process.

DATES: The March 1, 2019 proposed rule (84 FR 6996) is withdrawn as of 
July 28, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Beasley, Associate Director, 
Cultural Resources Partnerships and Science & Keeper of the National 
Register of Historic Places, NPS (WASO), (202) 354-6991, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0dadfc9efd2d5d1c3dcd5c9f0dec0c39ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c161305231e191d0f1019053c120c0f521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>.

Shannon A. Estenoz,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2021-15944 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
AO 450(Rev. 5/85)Judgment in a Civil Case

United States District Court

Northern District of Illinois

Eastern Division

DURAN, ET AL JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v. Case Number: 01 C 6858

TOWN OF CICERO, ET AL

O Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been

tried and the jury rendered its verdict.

G Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues

have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that jury verdict for certain plaintiffs and

against the defendants.

Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court

Date: 2/19/2008 ________________________________

/s/ Terry Perdue, Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:01-cv-06858 Document #: 489 Filed: 02/19/08 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3209
#### The United States, Plaintiffs in error, *v.*One Case of Clocks, Lion, Pinsard, and Co., Claimants.

The decision in the three preceding cases again affirmed.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.

It was similar, in its circumstances, to the case of The United States *v.*Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods, and was argued by *Mr.*Cushing, attorney-general, at the same time.

Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a libel of information, filed in the district court of the United.States for the eastern.district of Louisiana, for the condemnation and forfeiture of one case of clocks, for entry of goods upon an invoice, in which the goods were invoiced at a sum less than the actual cost value at the place of exportation, with a design to evade the duties.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which a judgment was rendered; but, afterwards, the court arrested and set aside the judgment, and gave judgment for the claimants, dismissing the libel, which was affirmed on error, in the circuit court.

For the reasons given, in the case of The United States *v*. Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods, the judgment of the court bélow must be reversed, and the record remitted for further proceedings, in conformity to the opinion of this court.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL dissented.

*Order.*

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern .district of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court in this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said circuit court for further proceedings to be had' therein in conformity to the opinion of this court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         167,931
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     29,957
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               212,832
<PP&E>                                          11,524
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,097
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 221,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,631
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           419
<OTHER-SE>                                     169,116
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   221,439
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,972
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,172
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,052)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,052)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,052)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

488 TP 16-01007 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF SHANNON V. CAMPBELL, PETITIONER,

V ORDER

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT.

SHANNON V. CAMPBELL, PETITIONER PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Seneca County [Dennis F. Bender, A.J.], entered June 9, 2016) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.
It is hereby ORDERED that said proceeding is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot ( see Matter of Free v Coombe , 234 AD2d 996).

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Document

Exhibit 10.1

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE 
ALBEMARLE CORPORATION
2013 STOCK COMPENSATION AND
DEFERRAL ELECTION PLAN
FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

    In accordance with Article 12 of the Albemarle Corporation 2013 Stock Compensation and Deferral Election Plan for Non-Employee Directors, as amended July 11, 2016 (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:
1.    Effective January 1, 2021, Section 6.6(b) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“(b)    Notwithstanding paragraph (a) hereof, (i) with respect to a Director who does not stand for reelection as a Director for the following Compensation Year pursuant to meeting the Company’s retirement guidelines, any unvested Shares shall not be forfeited but shall vest at the time of the annual meeting when the Director effectively retires; and (ii) unless otherwise determined by the Company, with respect to a Director who elects not to stand for reelection as a Director for the following Compensation Year, unvested Shares shall not be forfeited but shall vest at the annual meeting when his or her time as a Director effectively ends.”


        2.    The provisions of this Fourth Amendment to the Plan shall be effective as of January 1, 2021.
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation by its duly authorized officer and with its seal affixed, has caused these presents to be signed as of this 18th day of June, 2021.
            ALBEMARLE CORPORATION
                                By:  /s/ Karen G. Narwold        
Karen G. Narwold 
Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
# C_2005245EN.01000101.xml

| 5.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/1

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

2,06 % on 1 October 2005

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

4 October 2005

(2005/C 245/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1938 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,44 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4627 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67860 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3210 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5508 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 73,48 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8815 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5731 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,608 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 250,49 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6965 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9328 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5490 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,54 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,815 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6151 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5627 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3935 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2606 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7183 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0220 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 243,88 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,6898 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6602 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4045 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 170,79 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,501 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 66,859 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,1710 |
| THB | Thai baht | 49,081 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1938

JPY

Japanese yen

136,44

DKK

Danish krone

7,4627

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67860

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3210

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5508

ISK

Iceland króna

73,48

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8815

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5731

CZK

Czech koruna

29,608

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

250,49

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6965

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9328

RON

Romanian leu

3,5490

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,54

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,815

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6151

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5627

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3935

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2606

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7183

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0220

KRW

South Korean won

1 243,88

ZAR

South African rand

7,6898

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6602

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4045

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 170,79

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,501

PHP

Philippine peso

66,859

RUB

Russian rouble

34,1710

THB

Thai baht

49,081

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

(2)

2

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Paul DePond, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Notify Technology Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Notify Technology Corporation.





By:

/s/ Paul F. DePond

Name:  Paul F. DePond

Title:   Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)



Date: May 14, 2009







I, Gerald W. Rice, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Notify Technology Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Notify Technology Corporation.



By:

/s/ Gerald W. Rice

Name: Gerald W. Rice

Title:   Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)

Date: May 14, 2009



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Notify Technology Corporation and will be retained by Notify Technology Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14 -36V Filed: April 22, 2016

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JOAN KARL, *

* Petitioner, * Decision Based on Stipulation;

v. * Influenza (“flu”) vaccine;

* Inappropriate sinus

* tachycardia (“IST”).

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Howard Gold

, Gold Law Firms, LLC, Wellesley Hills, MA, for petitioner. Ryan Pyles, United States. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1

Roth , Special Master:

Joan Karl [“petitioner”] filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 2 on January 16, 2014. Petitioner alleges that she developed significant tachycardia, inappropriate sinus tachycardia, non-specific ST abnormalities 3 an d palpitations a n influenza (“ flu ”) vaccination on January 6, 2012. See Petition, at 1. Respondent denies that the influenza vaccine caused petitioner to suffer any injury and that her current disabilities are a sequela of the vaccine-related injury. Stipulation at 1

.

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On April 21, 2016, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this
decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that satisfies the criteria in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).

3 In the Stipulation, petitioner alleges only inappropriate sinus tachycardia. See Stipulation at 1.2

Respondent agrees to issue the following payment:

A lump sum of $ 40 ,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Joan

Karl. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under § 300aa-15(a).

I adopt the parties’ stipula tion attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount

and on the terms set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in

accordance with this decision. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth Mindy Michaels Roth Special Master

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.