alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
145 So. 135

#### HORTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CO. et al. v. SCHNEIDER.

*1*Div. 742.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 22, 1932.

Gordon, Edington & Leigh, of Mobile, for appellants.

*668W. J. Young, of Mobile, for appellee.

GARDNER, J.

The bill is to be construed as one for rescission and cancellation of a contract for the purchase of real estate upon the ground of fraud in its procurement, and for relief incident thereto, including a recovery of -the purchase money paid. 39 Cyc. pp. 1426-7; Orendorff v. Tallman, 90 Ala. 441, 7 So. 821; Garner Neville & Co. v. Leverett, 32 Ala. 410.

The contract here involved has been declared void as against public policy (Horticultural Development Co. v. Lark, 224 Ala. 193, 139 So. 229), and the principal insistence here urged against the bill is that it appears the parties are in pari delicto, in which event the law leaves them where it finds them, and will grant no relief; citing Gill Printing Co. v. Goodman, 224 Ala. 97, 139 So. 250; Lunsford v. First National Bank, 224 Ala. 679, 141 So. 673.

Complainant insists the foregoing principle is inapplicable to a contract of this character (13 Corpus Juris 505), but this question may be left to one side and undetermined. This for the reason the relief here sought is based upon defendants’ fraudulent conduct whereby complainant was induced, without reading it, to enter into the contract, and the authorities are in accord that under such circumstances the principle sought to be invoked is without application.

“Where parties to a contract against public policy or otherwise illegal, are not in pari delicto, or equally guilty, which they may not be, and where public policy is considered as-advanced by allowing either, or at least the-.more excusable of the two, to sue for relief against the transaction, relief is given to him. The cases of this character are generally where the party asking to be relieved from the effect of an illegal agreement was induced to enter into the same by means of fraud. Here he is not regarded as being inpari delicto with -the other party, and the court may relieve him.” 13 Corpus Juris 498. And such in effect was the holding of this court in Shipman v. Furniss, 69 Ala. 555, 44 Am. Rep. 528.

Of course the right of rescission for fraud must be seasonably exercised (Stafford v. Colonial Mortgage & Bond Co., 221 Ala. 636, 130 So. 383), but the bill discloses no defect in this regard.

It. appears that complainant, upon discovering the true condition of the'contract,, contrary to that as represented upon its execution, repudiated the same, declined to accept the character of deed tendered, successfully defended litigation sought to enforce it, and seasonably thereafter sought this relief by way of rescission. The individual defendants are the agents of the corporation who are charged with the fraud, and under the authorities they are not improper parties. Johnston v. Little, 141 Ala. 383, 37 So. 592; Story’s Eq. Pleading, § 226; Robinson v. Davis, 11 N. J. Eq. 302, 69 Am. Dec. 591.

We find no error in the decree rendered,, and it will accordingly be here affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BOÜLDIN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
# C_2017382EN.01005201.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/52

---

Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Sárossy v Commission

(Case T-633/17)

(2017/C 382/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Róbert Sárossy (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 12 June 2017 relating to Ares (2017) 2929030; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 12 June 2017 relating to Ares (2017) 2929030;

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2017)5147 final of 17 July 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2017)5147 final of 17 July 2017;

| — | order the Commission to make all of the documents relating to EU Pilot Case 8572/15 (CHAP (2015)00353) accessible to the applicant, irrespective of whether they are already available or are to be made available only in the future; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to make all of the documents relating to EU Pilot Case 8572/15 (CHAP (2015)00353) accessible to the applicant, irrespective of whether they are already available or are to be made available only in the future; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law and main arguments

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

According to the applicant, there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the contested documents since making the documents available to the public would make it possible for:

| — | the economic interests of consumers to be protected; |
| --- | --- |

—

the economic interests of consumers to be protected;

| — | the internal market to be protected; |
| --- | --- |

—

the internal market to be protected;

| — | the Commission’s investigation activity to be reviewed; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission’s investigation activity to be reviewed;

| — | democracy in Hungary to be strengthened; and |
| --- | --- |

—

democracy in Hungary to be strengthened; and

| — | the advantages of Hungary’s membership of the European Union to be made evident to citizens. |
| --- | --- |

—

the advantages of Hungary’s membership of the European Union to be made evident to citizens.

---
#### Dana RUSSWORM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-17404.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 5, 2006.*

Filed June 15, 2006.

Dana Russworm, Coalinga, CA, pro se.

*655Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Upon review of the record and appellant’s opening brief, this court hereby summarily affirms the district court’s order denying appellant’s premature motion for prehminary injunctive relief. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (summary affirmance appropriate where result is clear from face of record); *see also,*Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 (court can’t grant preliminary injunctive relief prior to service on opposing side).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2050

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Melvin R. Johnson, also known *

as Melvyn R. Johnson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 18, 2008

Filed: May 21, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Melvin R. Johnson appeals the 120-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or

more of cocaine base and distributing a cocaine-base mixture, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and (C). Johnson’s counsel has requested leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
-2-

arguing that the district court erred in determining Johnson was ineligible for safetyvalve relief and in sentencing Johnson to the mandatory minimum.

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying Johnson

safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(2) and USSG § 5C1.2(a)(2). See United

States v. Warford, 439 F.3d 836, 844 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). The court

found that Johnson failed to show that he did not use violence or credible threats of

violence in connection with the offense, because Johnson “resisted arrest to the point

that he had to be tasered and was told to stop and continued to resist, even after being

told to stop.” (S. Tr. 25). This record is sufficient to support the court’s

determination. Consequently, we conclude that Johnson’s sentence, the statutory

minimum, is not unreasonable. See United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th

Cir. 2006).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We grant counsel

leave to withdraw, subject to the condition that counsel promptly comply with the

requirements of Part V of this Court’s Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act by

advising Johnson of the procedures for filing a petition for writ of certiorari pro se. 

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2246 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2246

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 15, 2020

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 201 West Cherokee Street in Brookhaven, Mississippi, as the ``Deputy 
  Donald William Durr, Corporal Zach Moak, and Patrolman James White 
                    Memorial Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DEPUTY DONALD WILLIAM DURR, CORPORAL ZACH MOAK, AND 
              PATROLMAN JAMES WHITE MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 201 West Cherokee Street in Brookhaven, Mississippi, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Deputy Donald William Durr, Corporal 
Zach Moak, and Patrolman James White Memorial Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Deputy 
Donald William Durr, Corporal Zach Moak, and Patrolman James White 
Memorial Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 2020.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
13 September 2023

Via E-mail

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

201-418-5000

FOIAsubmissions@cftc.gov

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request 

Dear Sir or Madam:

ICE Clear Europe Limited (“Submitter”) hereby respectfully requests that the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (the “CFTC”) accord confidential treatment under 17 C.F.R. §145.9 in relation to the ‘Futures and 

Options Risk Procedures’ document submitted today which bear the bates number 13.09.2023-000033-CFTC and 

13.09.2023-000084-CFTC and all information derived therefrom (collectively, the “Confidential Information”).

This request for confidential treatment is made pursuant to 17 C.F.R. §145.9(d) (1) because Submitter believes 

that the Confidential Information is covered by one or more exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act (the 

“FOIA”) (5 U.S.C. §552(b)) and is therefore exempt from the CFTC’s public disclosure requirements pursuant 

to 17 C.F.R. §145.5. In particular, 5 U.S.C. §552(b) (4) and 17 C.F.R. §145.9(d) (1) (ii) exempts disclosure that 

would reveal the Submitter’s trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information. Submitter 

believes that the Confidential Information contains confidential commercial and financial information as well as 

proprietary information regarding business procedures and systems that should be protected from public 

disclosure pursuant to this exemption. Confidential treatment is requested for a period of five years. 

This request is not to be construed as a waiver of any other protection from disclosure or confidential treatment 

accorded by law, and Submitter will rely on and invoke any such confidentiality protection. Submitter requests 

that the CFTC advise the undersigned, pursuant to 17 C.F.R. §145.9(e) (1), in advance of any disclosure of the 

Confidential Information pursuant to the FOIA, so that this request for confidential treatment may be 

substantiated.

If you should have any questions or comments or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the

undersigned at philip.tooke@ice.com or +44 (0)20 3142 0842.

Very truly yours,

Philip Tooke

Senior Compliance Analyst
Exhibit No. 32.1


BTHC XIV, Inc.


File No. 0-52722


Form 10-Q


Quarter ended June 30, 2010








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 BTHC XIV, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick D. Souter, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.








Dated: August 11, 2010

/s/ Patrick D. SouterPatrick D. SouterChief Executive Officer,and Chief Financial Officer













A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BTHC XIV, Inc. and will be retained by BTHC XIV, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Friday, March 13, 2015

No. 04-14-00761-CR

David CHARLES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR5564

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On January 29, 2015, this Court granted Appellant’s motion for a 30-day extension of time to 

file his brief, extending the deadline to March 2, 2015. Appellant filed a second motion requesting a 

30-day extension of time, which this Court granted in part, extending appellant’s deadline to March 

16, 2015. Appellant now files his third motion for extension of time, requesting extension to Friday, 

April 4, 2015 (presumed to be Friday, April 3, 2015).

It is ORDERED the motion is GRANTED. Appellant must file the brief on or before Friday, April 3, 

2015. This extension extends Appellant’s deadline to 60 days after the original brief was due. For 

this reason, NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 4.24**

 

**Summary of the Share Purchase Agreement entered into between Transmissora Aliança de Energia Elétrica S.A. and Abengoa Concessões Brasil Holding S.A.**

 

On March 16, 2012, Transmissora Aliança de Energia Elétrica S.A. (“**Taesa**”) entered into an agreement for sale of shares held by Abengoa Concessões Brasil Holding S.A. (“**Abengoa Concessões**”), representing 50% of the share capital of União de Transmissoras de Energia Elétrica Holding S.A. (“**Unisa**”), which in turn owns 100% of the share capital of the transmission companies:

 

ATE Transmissora de Energia S.A. (“**ATE**”),

ATE II Transmissora de Energia S.A. (“**ATE II**”), and

ATE III Transmissora de Energia S.A. (“**ATE III**”) and

STE — Sul Transmissora de Energia S.A. (“**STE**”),

— when jointly referred to, the “**Subsidiaries**”.

 

The acquisition price was R$ 863,500,000.00 (eight hundred and sixty three million, five hundred thousand Reais) as of December 31, 2011.

 

The acquisition price will be adjusted by the variation in the Selic rate (the rate calculated by the Special Settlement and Custody System — Sistema Especial de Liquidação e Custódia, or Selic), from December 31, 2010 up to the business day immediately prior to the closing date of the transaction, and reduced, as applicable, by 50% of any dividends or Interest on Equity paid by the Subsidiaries during that period. The acquisition price will also be updated in accordance with any increase or reduction of capital during the period.

 

In the event of rescission of the Share Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Infringing party will be subject to a penalty equivalent to 10% of the acquisition price.

 

The Share Purchase and Sale Agreement contains warranties, guarantees and obligations by Taesa and by Abengoa Concessões. The closing of the transaction is subject to certain conditions, including:

 

·                  approval by stockholders;

·                  approval by the competent authorities, including the National Electricity Agency (*Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica*, or Aneel); and

·                  any consents from the banks financing the Subsidiaries.

 

The date of completion of the transaction will be decided after these conditions have been met. The acquisition will also be submitted for approval by the Economic Defense Administrative Council (*Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica*, or Cade), within the period and in the manner specified in the relevant legislation.

 

----
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Companhia Energética de Minas GeraisCEMIG (the Company) for the period ended
December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Adézio de Almeida Lima, Chief Officer for Finance and Investor Relations of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                                        
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Adézio de Almeida Lima                             
|    |  | Name: Adézio de Almeida Lima                           
|    |  | Title: Chief Officer for Finance and Investor Relations

Dated: May 16, 2017
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13481]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR01-7-000]


Transok, LLC; Notice of Settlement Conference

May 23, 2001.
    Take notice that a settlement conference will be held on Friday, 
June 8, 2001, at 9 a.m., in a room to be designated at the offices of 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.
    All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-13481 Filed 5-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13084]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-63-003]


Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of 
Compliance Filing

May 18, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 15, 2001, Great Lakes Gas Transmission 
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) tendered for filing as part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following sheets with 
an effective date of April 30, 2001:

Substitute Seventh Revised Sheet No. 4
Substitute Sixth Revised Sheet No. 13

    Great Lakes states that these tariff sheets are being filed to a) 
comply with the Commission's April 27, 2001 Letter Order wherein Great 
Lakes was directed to correct an editing error in Seventh Revised Sheet 
No. 4 and b) restate Sixth Revised Sheet No. 13 as a result of the 
rejection of Fifth Revised Sheet No. 13 in the Commission's April 25, 
2001 Letter Order.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-13084 Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302

I, Eric Bouvier, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of BG Medicine, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: May 1, 2013                    
|                                     
|/s/ Eric Bouvier                     
|Eric Bouvier                         
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(principal executive officer)