alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1452.

#### Collins *v.*West.

Powell, J.

I. In an action of bail-trover, the petition must definitely identify the property by a particular description, or by a general description coupled with such additional allegations as to the time and place or manner of the taking or conversion as plainly to isolate the thing sued for from the general class to which it belongs. *McElhannon.**430v. *Farmers Alliance Warehouse Co.,*95 *Ga.*670 (22 S. E. 686); *McLennan*v. *Livingston,*108 *Ga.*342 (33 S. E. 974).

Bail-trover, from city court of Camilla — Judge Scaife. September 1, 1908.

Submitted December 10, 1908.

Decided January *27,*1909.

*B. J. Bacon,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. S. Johnson, B. B. Odom, Bennet & Cox,*contra.

2. The only description of the property being “seventy-five bushels of corn in the shuck, of the value of fifty-two and 52/100 dollars — said corn raised on the Culpepper place,” it was not sufficient to be the basis of bail-trover; and the court erred in not dismissing the action, on demurrer.

*3.*The defendant demurred to the petition, the court overruled the demurrer, the defendant preserved exceptions pendente lite to the ruling, the case proceeded to trial -and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant moved for a new trial, but the motion was dismissed on the ground that the brief of the evidence was not filed within the time prescribed; the plaintiff filed his main bill of exceptions within due time, excepting to the dismissal of his motion and assigning error upon his exceptions pendente lite. *Held,*that the court will pass upon the questions presented by the exceptions pendente lite, irrespective of whether the court’s action on the motion for a new trial was proper or improper. The court having erroneously overruled the demurrer, the whole trial that followed was a nullity. See *Lyndon*v. *Ga. Ry.*& *Elec. Co.,*129 *Ga.*353 (58 S. E. 1047). *Judgment reversed.*
CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSONS





To:

US Securities and Exchange Commission





I, Andrew F. Ross, on behalf of Snowden Mining Industry Consultants, do hereby consent to (i) the incorporation by reference of the following document(s) into the annual information form (the AIF) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Issuer) dated March 22, 2006 to be filed with certain Canadian securities commissions and the annual report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of the Issuer to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection therewith, and (ii) the inclusion of any extracts from or summary of such document(s) in the AIF and the 40-F:

1.

Technical Report on the Segala Property, Mali West Africa, dated May 17, 2004

2.

Technical Report on the Tabakoto Property, Mali West Africa, dated May 17, 2004;

(collectively, the Technical Reports).

I also certify that I have read the written disclosure (Mineral Properties AIF 2006 excertp.doc Section 1.1, dated 20/03/2006) being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical Report or that the written disclosure in the AIF or the 40-F of the Issuer contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in the Technical Report.

Dated this 20th day of March, 2006.

signed

_______________________
Andrew F. Ross, P. Geo.

General Manager, Snowden Mining Consultants Inc.





[Seal or Stamp]
State of North Carolina v. Shalaby Alin Haqq

No. COA16-168

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

NO ERROR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                         975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NOT SEPARATELY INDENTIFIED IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR ACCOMPANYING
NOTES THERETO.
</FN>


</TABLE>
# C_2008116EN.01002002.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 March 2008 — Huta Buczek v Commission

(Case T-440/07 R)

(Interim measures - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - No urgency)

(2008/C 116/36)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Huta Buczek sp. z o.o. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: D. Szlachetko-Reiter, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross, M. Kaduczak and A. Styobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2007) 5087 final of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
# C_2008183EN.01003003.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/30

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 June 2008 — Avaya v OHIM — ZyXEL Communications (VANTAGE CNM)

(Case T-171/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 183/58)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

1

---
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00419-CR

Domingo Trevino III

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. S-19-3089CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 8, 2021
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
BEIJING MED-PHARM CORPORATION
PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Beijing Med-Pharm Corporation;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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ DAVID GAODavid GaoChief Executive Officer
 32
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 137062 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 137062 COA: 275840 Wayne CC: 06-010798-01 ELARNSIL ODOM, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 17, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

1020 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2008

Clerk
Exhibit
10.4
 
 Cenveo, Inc.
 One Canterbury Green
 201 Broad Street, 6th
Floor
 Stamford, CT 06901
 (203) 595-3000
 Fax (203) 595-3074
 
 November 6, 2007
 
 Mr.
Robert G. Burton
 170
Clapboard Ridge Road
 Greenwich,
Connecticut 06831
 
 RE:  Cenveo, Inc. (the
“Company”)
 
 Dear
Bob:
 
 Reference is made to the employment
agreement dated October 27, 2005 between you and the Company, as amended on
November 8, 2006 (as amended, the “Employment Agreement”).  This
letter agreement (the “Amendment”) will serve to amend the Employment Agreement
in the following respects, effective as of the date of this
letter.  (Capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment will have
the same meaning as in the Employment Agreement.)
 
 1.  The first sentence of
Section 2(a) (“Base Salary”) of the Employment Agreement is amended to increase
the rate of your annual Base Salary by replacing the amount “$1,000,001” with
the amount “$1,100,000.”
 
 2.  Section 5(a) of the
Employment Agreement is amended to provide that you will from and after any
termination of your employment be entitled to receive under the Company’s
insured medical plan or, if such plan is self-insured, through the purchase of
insurance, medical coverage that is no less favorable than the medical coverage
provided from time to time to the Company’s senior management
employees.  The cost to you for such coverage shall be no greater than
100% of the premium cost for medical insurance coverage provided by the Company
to its active senior management employees.
 
 3.  Section 5(c) of the
Employment Agreement is amended to provide that if the Company terminates your
employment without Cause or if you terminate your employment for Good Reason,
you will immediately vest in all outstanding stock options or other equity
grants issued to you as of the date of your termination (it is acknowledged by
the Company that some but not all of the awards evidencing your outstanding
stock options and other equity grants have provided for such vesting prior to
amending the Employment Agreement pursuant to this sentence).
 
 
 
  The
Employment Agreement otherwise remains in full force and effect.  This
amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which will
constitute an original, and all of which together will constitute one and the
same.
 
 If the foregoing terms and conditions
are acceptable and agreed to by you, please sign the line provided below to
signify such acceptance and agreement and return the executed copy to the
undersigned.
 
  CENVEO,
      INC.
                
                
                By:
      /s/ Patrice M.
      Daniels
                Name:
      Patrice M. Daniels
                Title: 
      Director & Chairperson of the
                Compensation Committee
 
 
 Accepted
and Agreed this
 6th day of
November, 2007.
 
 
 /s/ Robert G. Burton,
Sr.
 Robert
G. Burton, Sr.
   -2-
* 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. 99-20766 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARLOS DIAZ-FABIAN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CR-452-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 11, 2000 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carlos Diaz-Fabian appeals from his bench-trial conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Diaz-Fabian contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of his prior deportation because his prior deportation proceedings violated his right to due process. He concedes that the only issue raised in this appeal is foreclosed by our decision in United States v.No. 99-20766 -2- Benitez-Villafuerte , 186 F.3d 651, 656-60 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied , 120 S. Ct. 838 (2000). The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Section 906 Certification



The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2005 pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law.



Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a), or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sensus Metering Systems (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus Metering Systems Inc.



|                         |  |                                                                           |  |          |  |                                                                          
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DANIEL W. HARNESS |  | /s/    PETER MAINZ                                                       
|Name:                    |  | Daniel W. Harness                                                         |  | Name:    |  | Peter Mainz                                                              
|Title:                   |  | Chief Executive Officer and President                                     |  | Title:   |  | Chief Financial Officer                                                  
|Company:                 |  | Sensus Metering Systems (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus Metering Systems Inc. |  | Company: |  | Sensus Metering Systems (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus Metering Systems Inc.
|Date:                    |  | January 31, 2006                                                          |  | Date:    |  | January 31, 2006
STATE of North Carolina v. Derrick D. BOGER

No. 158P06-12

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 12, 2017

Derrick D. Boger, for Boger, Derrick D.

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 11th of May 2017 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Cabarrus County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th of May 2017."
State of North Carolina v. Roy Lee Stubbs

No. COA16-411

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.0

                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 on Form 10-Q of LIN TV
Corp. for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Gary R.
Chapman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, William A. Cunningham, Vice
President and Controller, Deborah R. Jacobson, Vice President of Corporate
Development and Treasurer, and Peter E. Maloney, Vice President of Finance, each
hereby certifies, 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.

         Dated: August 5, 2003   /s/ Gary R. Chapman
                                 -------------------------------------------
                                 Gary R. Chapman
                                 Chief Executive Officer

         Dated: August 5, 2003   /s/ William A. Cunningham
                                 -------------------------------------------
                                 William A. Cunningham
                                 Vice President and Controller

         Dated: August 5, 2003    /s/ Deborah R. Jacobson
                                 ------------------------------------------
                                 Deborah R. Jacobson
                                 Vice President of Corporate Development and
                                 Treasurer

         Dated: August 5, 2003   /s/ Peter E. Maloney
                                 ------------------------------------------
                                 Peter E. Maloney
                                 Vice President of Finance
In the MATTER OF the Foreclosure of a Deed of Trust Executed by Candice BOEHM in the Original Amount of $211,680.00 Dated November 30, 2005, Recorded in Book 4146, Page 265, and Modification in Book 4520, Page 434, Buncombe County Registry

Substitute Trustee Services, Inc. Substitute Trustee

No. COA16-299

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 20, 2017

DISMISSED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1687

CLEARWATER TRUST, a trust for the benefit of Russell B. Lentz,

Jr. and Mitzi L. Lentz with Donna Schuford as trustee; THE

ELISABETH T. LENTZ TRUST, with Marydine Lentz Lamb as trustee;

RUSSELL B. LENTZ, JR. and MITZI L. LENTZ, individually and as

owners and beneficiaries of the Clearwater Trust and as

beneficiaries of the Elisabeth T. Lentz Trust, the Russell B.

Lentz Trust, a trust for the benefit of Elisabeth T. Lentz,

and the estate of Elisabeth R. Lentz,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

WYCHE, BURGESS, FREEMAN & PARHAM, PA; MARSHALL WINN; WALLACE K.

LIGHTSEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (6:06-cv-01854-GRA)

Submitted: August 8, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.
 2 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John B. Veach, III, FALLS & VEACH, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellants. Thomas W. Traxler, S. Brook Fowler, CARTER, SMITH,

MERRIAM, ROGERS & TRAXLER, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 3 

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order granting

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ legal

malpractice action. On appeal, Plaintiffs contend the district

court misapplied the facts and the law in concluding they waited

more than three years to commence this action after discovery; in

not determining that a jury could reasonably conclude the lawsuit

was timely filed; and in not finding that Defendants were estopped

from asserting the statute of limitations. We affirm. 

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de

novo, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party. Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208,

213 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 955 (2008). Summary

judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and

disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is

no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

“[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence

favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for

that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not

significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.”

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986).
 4 

With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the

parties’ briefs and the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Clearwater Trust v. Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham,

PA, No. 6:06-cv-01854-GRA (D.S.C. June 20, 2007). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED