alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(85 South. 486)

#### RODGERS v. RICKETTS.

(8 Div. 248.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 8, 1920.)

1. Appeal and error <&wkey; 1011 (I) — Finding on conflicting evidence not disturbed.

Where the evidence on an issue of fact was conflicting, the Supreme Court cannot disturb the finding of the trial court, who saw and heard the witnesses.

2. Trial <&wkey;>46(2) — Testimony of defendant as to market value of mule sold plaintiff inadmissible in absence of explanation.

In an assumpsit by plaintiff claiming he bought a mule for $40 from defendant who claims the price was $140, testimony of defendant as to the reasonable market value of the mule when he sold .it *held*irrelevant in the absence of explanation to the court that the answer would tend to show a value very greatly in excess of $40.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County ; Robert C. Brickell, Judge.

Action of assumpsit by J. L. Ricketts against E. Douglass Rodgers. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 450, § 6.

Affirmed..

Spragins & Speake, of Huntsville, for appellant.

The evidence was conflicting, and the court should have admitted in evidence the circumstances tending to throw light .on the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the respective claims of the parties. 203 Ala-481, 83 South. 475; 16 Oye. 1118.

R. E. Smith, of Huntsville, for appellee-

No brief came to the reporter.

SOMERVILLE, J.

[1] The sole issue ot fact in this case was whether plaintiff bought the mule from defendant for the price of $40, as claimed by plaintiff, or for the price of' $140, as claimed by defendant. On this issue it seems to us that the evidence preponderated somewhat in favor of plaintiff; at least, it was in such conflict that we cannot disturb the finding of the trial court, who-saw and heard the witnesses, and can better. judge of their credibility than can we.

As tending to show the greater probability of defendant’s claim as to the price agreed on, his attorney asked him what was the-reasonable market value of the mule at the time he sold it to plaintiff.

[2] In the absence of any explanation to-the court that the answer would tend to show a value very greatly in excess of $40, if not of approximately $140, it is clear that the question was properly excluded as irrelevant. Non constat, but the answer may have been, that the value was but $40- or $50, and hence-prejudice from its exclusion does- not appear..

We need not determine whether, if it had appeared that the answer would have been, that the value was $140, or thereabouts, that fact would have been relevant to the credibility of the respective claims of the parties, as tending to show the probability of the one, or the improbability of the other. See, however, for analogous instances, Brewer v. Watson, 65 Ala. 88, 97; Langworthy v. Goodall, 76 Ala. 325; Steen v. Swadley, 126 Ala. 616, 28 South. 620.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and THOMAS and BROWN, JJ., concur.

c§x=oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numhered Digests and Indexes
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Revett Minerals Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each
of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ Ken
EickermanKen Eickerman Chief Financial Officer Date: August 11,
2011

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Revett Minerals Inc. and will be retained by Revett
Minerals Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Report of HERITAGE-CRYSTAL CLEAN, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 26, 2011 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Chalhoub, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: May 9, 2011By:/s/ Joseph ChalhoubJoseph ChalhoubPresident, CEO and Director — Principal Executive Officer
Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 
 
 The Board
of Directors
 Catalyst
Paper Corporation
 
  We
consent to the use of the following reports in this annual report on Form 40-F
(the “Form    40-F”) of Catalyst Paper Corporation (the
“Company”):
  ·
              Auditors’
      Report to the Shareholders dated February 5, 2008, except as to note 29
      which is as of February 11, 2008, on the consolidated balance sheets of
      the Company as at December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the consolidated
      statements of earnings and comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity and
      cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
      31, 2007included in the Annual Report of the Company and incorporated by reference
      in the Form 40-F;
  ·
              Report
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 5, 2008 on
      the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
      2007 included in the Annual Report of the Company and incorporated by
      reference in the Form 40-F;
  ·
              Comments
      by Auditors for U.S. Readers on Canada – U.S. Reporting Differences dated
      February 5, 2008 included herein;
and
   (signed)
KPMG LLP
 Chartered
Accountants
 
 Vancouver,
Canada
 March 28,
2008







Comments
by Auditors for US Readers on Canada – US Reporting
Differences
  
 The Board
of Directors
 Catalyst
Paper Corporation
  
  In the
United States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition of an
explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when there is a change
in accounting principles that has a material effect on the comparability of the
Company's financial statements, such as the change described in note 2(c)
to the consolidated financial statements as at December 31, 2007 and 2006 and
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007. Our
report to the shareholders dated February 5, 2008, except as to note 29 which is
as of February 11, 2008, is expressed in accordance with Canadian reporting
standards, which do not require a reference to such a change in accounting
principles in the auditors' report when the change is properly accounted for and
adequately disclosed in the financial statements.
  In the
United States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition of an
explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) that refers to the audit
report on the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Our report to
the shareholders dated February 5, 2008, except as to note 29 which is as of
February 11, 2008, is expressed in accordance with Canadian reporting standards,
which do not require a reference to the audit report on the Company's internal
control over financial reporting in the financial statement auditors'
report.
      Chartered
Accountants
  Vancouver,
Canada
 March 28,
2008
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 29, 2013

t0422

Order 

April 29, 2013

145292

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145292

COA: 309912 

Wayne CC: 11-004108-FC

JAMES BERNARD McCRAY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 30, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
##### 



1935 Avenida del Oro · Tel. (760) 806-8922
Occanside, CA 92056 · Fax. (760) 806-8933
www.seracare.com
 Employment Agreement
  EMPLOYMENT
  DUTIES
    COMPENSATION




---



##### 



Education Sign-On Payment
 Stock Option Award
 Annual Bonus, Incentive, Savings and Retirement Plans
 Welfare Benefit Plans
 Expenses
 Fringe Benefits
 Paid Time Off (PTO)




---



##### 



TERMINATION
 Death or Disability
 Cause




---



##### 



Other than Cause or Death or Disability
 Obligations of the Company Upon Termination.
 Death or Disability
 Cause
 Other than Cause or Death or Disability
 i.
    
    In the event termination occurs during the Initial Term of
the Agreement, the Company shall pay severance pay to Employee in the amount
of the remaining monthly base salary through the end of the Initial Term. Any
severance payments made under this Section IV.D.3(i) shall be made in the
normal payroll cycles following the termination date and shall be less
standard tax withholdings and other authorized deductions.ii.
    
    In the event termination occurs during any Renewal Term under
Section VI of the Agreement, the Company shall pay severance pay to Employee
in the amount equal to the lesser




---



##### 



of (a) six months base salary at Employees then applicable monthly rate, and
(b) the remaining monthly base salary through the end of the Renewal Term.
Any severance payments made under this Section lV.D.3(ii) shall be made in
the normal payroll cycles following the termination date and shall be less
standard tax withholdings and other authorized deductions.
 Exclusive Remedy
 ARBITRATION.




---



##### 



RENEWAL
 ANTISOLICITATION
  SOLICITING EMPLOYEES
  CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION




---



##### 



SUCCESSORS
   WAIVER
  MODIFICATION
  SAVINGS CLAUSE.
  COMPLETE AGREEMENT
  GOVERNING LAW




---



##### 



CONSTRUCTION
  COMMUNICATIONS
  EXECUTION
   SERACARE LIFE SCIENCES, INC.
    
    
    
    RONALD R. DILLINGBy: 
Name:
    
    /s/ Tim Lawlor

Tim Lawlor
    
    
    
    /s/ Ronald R. DillingTitle:
    
    Chief Operating Officer
Case 1:07-cv-05504-KMW Document 7 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 5 of 5
December 20, 2006

BY EMAIL

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W. :
Washington, D.C. 20581 .

Re: NYMEX Submission 06.154 — Daily Settlement Procedures for
NYMEX Softs Contracts

Dear CFTC Commissioners:

The New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. ("NYMEX" or the "Exchange") is notifying
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or Commission”) that beginning
on December 21, 2006, the New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. will list futures
contracts on Cocoa, Coffee, Cotton, Orange Juice, No. 11 Sugar, and No. 14 Sugar using
daily settlement procedures as outlined in the attachment.

Pursuant to Section Se(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) and CFTC Rule 40.2,
the Exchange hereby certifies that the attached comply with the Act, including

regulations under the Act. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please
contact the undersigned at (212) 299-, or at (212) 299- .

Very truly yours,

Senior Vice President
Robert Levin

Attachment: Rule Amendment 654(A)



NYMEX Rule 654 (A) Daily Settlement Procedures for NYMEX Softs
Products Cocoa, Coffee, Orange Juice, Cotton, No. 11 Sugar, and No. 14
Sugar. A) The terms of this rule shall generally govern the establishment of
settlement prices for NYMEX softs contracts that are only listed for trading on
NYMEX ClearPort® Trading and NYMEX ClearPort® Clearing. For cash-settled
contracts, this rule shall govern only for trade dates other than the final day in an
expiring contract month, and final settlement following termination in an expiring
contract month in such contracts shall be determined in accordance with the
terms and conditions chapter of rules for the applicable contract.

(B) The settlement prices established pursuant to this rule shall be determined by
the President's designee. For purposes of this rule, the President's designee
shall refer to Exchange staff from various Exchange departments assigned to this
responsibility (hereafter "Staff").

(C) Staff in its sole discretion and judgment shall determine settlement prices by
considering market information deemed to be appropriate, and such information
may include, but is not limited to:

(1) price data obtained from a cross-section of over-the-counter ("OTC") brokers
collectively representing both buyers and sellers in OTC markets;

(2) price data obtained from OTC market participants, considering both buyers
and sellers in such markets; and

(3) other relevant data and information.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2215

JACQUELINE QUINN, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus DEBBIE WATSON, Deli Manager for Publix Supermarket; PUBLIX SUPERMARKET, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-04-104-1) Submitted: December 8, 2004 Decided: January 14, 2005 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacqueline Quinn, Appellant Pro Se. Edmund Joseph McKenna, FORD & HARRISON, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee Publix Supermarket, Inc. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We note that Quinn would now be time-barred from initiating a new action. A Title VII action must be brought within 90 days of receipt of a right-to-sue letter issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. See § 2000e-5(f)(1). In instances where a complaint is timely filed and later dismissed, the timely filing of the complaint does not "toll" or suspend the ninety-day limitations period. SeeMinette v. Time Warner , 997 F.2d 1023, 1026-27 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA , 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992); Brown v. Hartshorne Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1 , 926 F.2d 959, 961 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that limitations period was not tolled during pendency of dismissed action)). Thus, even construing the district court’s order as a dismissal without prejudice will not benefit Quinn. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Jacqueline Quinn appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000) (“Title VII”) complaint. On August 26, 2004, the district court dismissed Quinn’s complaint on jurisdictional grounds. The court, adopting the reasoning set forth in Defendants’s motion to dismiss, determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), Title VII’s venue-laying provision. When a plaintiff files an action in the wrong venue, however, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (2000) directs courts to "dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case" to the proper venue. Because the record does not reflect such a determination, * we remand this case for a determination of whether a transfer to an appropriate jurisdiction would be in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we vacate the order of the district court and remand the case for further consideration in light of this- 3 - opinion. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 2 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 3 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 4 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 5 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 6 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 7 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 8 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 9 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 10 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 11 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 12 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 13 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 14 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 15 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 16 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 17 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 18 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 19 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 29 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 20 of 20
Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 54      Filed 08/19/2008     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 54      Filed 08/19/2008     Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1950 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1950

  To authorize the court to impose a reduced sentence for a youthful 
                victim offender, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 28, 2019

Mr. Westerman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the court to impose a reduced sentence for a youthful 
                victim offender, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as ``Sara's Law''.

SEC. 2. SENTENCING YOUTHFUL VICTIM OFFENDERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 3553 of chapter 227 of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) Sentencing Youthful Victim Offenders.--
            ``(1) Statutory minimums.--In the case of a youthful victim 
        offender, the court shall have the authority to impose a 
        sentence that is below a level established by statute as a 
        minimum sentence so as to consider the effect of trauma on the 
        offender's conduct.
            ``(2) Suspension of sentence.--In the case of a youthful 
        offender, the court shall have the authority to suspend any 
        portion of an imposed sentence.
            ``(3) Youthful victim offender defined.--In this 
        subsection, the term `youthful victim offender' means an 
        individual who--
                    ``(A) has not attained the age of 18; and
                    ``(B) has been convicted of a violent offense 
                against a person who the court finds, by clear and 
                convincing evidence, engaged in conduct against such 
                individual, not earlier than 1 year before such violent 
                offense, that is an offense under section 1591 or an 
                offense under chapter 71, 109A, 110, or 117.''.
    (b) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall apply 
only to a conviction entered on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.

SEC. 3. DIRECTIVE TO THE SENTENCING COMMISSION.

    Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United 
States Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States 
Sentencing Commission shall review and amend, if appropriate, its 
guidelines and its policy statements with respect to youthful victim 
offenders to ensure that the guidelines and policy statements are 
consistent with the amendments made by section 2.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2019246EN.01001801.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — KPN v Commission

(Case T-370/17) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Netherlands market for television services and telecommunications services - Full-function joint venture - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Commitments - Relevant market - Vertical effects - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons)

(2019/C 246/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KPN BV (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. van Ginneken and G. Béquet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, G. Conte, J. Szczodrowski and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: VodafoneZiggo Group Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Vodafone Group plc (Newbury, United Kingdom), Liberty Global Europe Holding BV (Amsterdam) (represented by: W. Knibbeler, E. Raedts and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 5165 final of 3 August 2016 declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by Vodafone Group and Liberty Global Europe Holding of joint control of a full-function joint venture to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.7978 — Vodafone — Liberty Global — Dutch JV).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders KPN BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, VodafoneZiggo Group Holding BV, Vodafone Group plc and Liberty Global Europe Holding BV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders KPN BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, VodafoneZiggo Group Holding BV, Vodafone Group plc and Liberty Global Europe Holding BV.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

---
July 26, 2007

Ms. Eileen A. Donovan

Acting Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Center

1155 21" Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Reference File # 2815.01
Rule Certification
Dear Ms. Donovan:

Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(a), the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT®) hereby
submits the following:

- Early listing of November 2009 Soybean Options.

This options contract ordinarily would be authorized for trading in July 2008. Due to customer
demand, the Exchange intends to list this contract earlier than usual (i.e., as of July 27, 2007).

This is a one-time change, rather than a permanent revision, in the Exchange’s listing cycle.
There were no opposing views with respect to this action.

The CBOT certifies that this action complies with the Commodity Exchange Act and the rules
thereunder.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Draths
Vice President and Secretary