alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ANSON BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. COLE HENRY.

(Filed 4 May, 1966.)

1. Appeal and Error § 19—

In the absence of any assignment of error the judgment will he sustained unless error appears on the face of the record proper or unless the issues are insufficient to support the judgment entered. Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court No. 19(3),'

*2542. Appeal and Error § 34—

Where the evidence is set out in the record entirely in question and answer form, the appeal will be dismissed in the absence of error appearing on the face of the record proper. Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court No. 19(4).

Moore, J., not sitting.

Appeal by defendant from *Gwyn, J.,*November 1965 Civil Session of ÁNSON.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover upon two promissory notes (Exhibits 1 and 2), which, it alleges, defendant executed and delivered to it for value received. Defendant’s answer is only a general denial of the allegations of the complaint. Upon the trial defendant admitted that, on June 7, 1955, for value received, he had executed and delivered to plaintiff a note (Exhibit 2), in the sum of $3,050.00, due and payable on September 7, 1955, and that it had not been paid. He also conceded that plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, a note in the amount of $1,195.00, dated May 24, 1954, and due July 9, 1954, bore his signature. Interest on this note had been paid to August 9, 1955, and the principal had been reduced to $1,150.00.

In accordance with the court’s peremptory instructions, the jury found that defendant was indebted to plaintiff on its Exhibit 1 in the amount of $1,150.00, with interest at 6% from August 9, 1955, and, on Exhibit 2, in the amount of $3,050.00, with interest from September 7, 1955. From judgment entered on the verdict, defendant appeals.

*Taylor, McLendon & Jones for plaintiff appellee.*

*Theron L. Caudle for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Defendant’s case on appeal contains no assignments of error as required by Rule 19(3), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. Therefore, unless error appears on the face of the record proper, or the issues are insufficient to support the judgment entered, the judgment will be sustained. *Bank v. Bryant,*257 N.C. 42, 125 S.E. 2d 291. The issues establish defendant’s indebtedness to plaintiff and are, therefore, clearly sufficient to support the judgment.

Defendant’s evidence in the case on appeal is set out entirely in questions and answers instead of in narrative form as required by Rule 19(4), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. When this rule is ignored, the Court considers only errors presented by the *255record proper. *Amusement Co. v. Tarkington,*251 N.C. 461, 111 S.E. 2d 538. In this case no such errors appear.

The appeal is

Dismissed.

Moore, J., not sitting.
#### HENDRICKS v. GUARANTY CO.

No. 17 PC.

Case below: 5 N.C. App. 181.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 29 August 1969.
No. 07

- 16

- 00009

- CV

Weird Times, LLC Appellant

v.

Sharon Ma Appellee §

§

§

§ From the 353rd District Court of Travis County

December 6, 2017

Opinion by Justice Pirtle

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated December 6, 2017

, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended for which

let execution issue.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT AND CANCELLATION OF LOAN


     THIS AGREEMENT dated this 2nd day of January, 1997, by and
between Lyric Energy, Inc., a Colorado corporation, herein
referred to as Lyric, and Center Plains Industries, a Texas
corporation, which has been succeeded to by ML & C Trust, Wes
Master, Jr., as Trustee.

     In consideration of the mutual covenants and premises
contained herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows:

     1.   On December 1, 1982, Lyric Energy, Inc. and Center
Plains Industries entered into an Agreement wherein Center Plains
Industries loaned Lyric the sum of $92,500.  In conformance with
the terms of the agreement that sum has now been reduced to
$88,907.40.

     2.   In consideration of such loan Lyric granted Center
Plains Industries the prior right of refusal to acquire any
ammonia which might have been made available from natural gas
underlying oil and gas leases which Lyric acquired utilizing the
funds loaned to Lyric by CPI.

     3.   That agreement also provided that the loan should bear
interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the unpaid balance.

     4.   The parties hereto desire to terminate the agreements
and ML & C Trust, Wes Master, Jr. as Trustee, hereby forgives the
unpaid principal balance of the loan and in addition forgives and
waives any interest which might have accrued or been due and
payable pursuant to the terms of the agreement.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed this 2nd day
of January, 1997.

               
                              LYRIC ENERGY, INC.


                              By:  /s/ G.E. Stahl
                                   G.E. Stahl, President


                              ML & C TRUST


                              By:  /s/ Wes Masters, Jr.
                                   Wes Master, Jr., Trustee
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6645

OPHEILA AZRIEL DE’LONTA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE; M. V. SMITH, Doctor; R.

HULBERT, Doctor; C. J. ANGLIKER, Doctor;

DOCTOR WRAY; DOCTOR SWETTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-99-642-7)

Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 4, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Opheila Azriel De’Lonta, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; George W. Wooten, Peter

Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia; Heather Marie

Kofron, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Opheila Azriel De’Lonta appeals from the district court’s

order denying a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief. To the extent De’Lonta appeals the denial of a

temporary restraining order, no circumstance warrants excepting

this case from the general rule that such denials are ordinarily

not apealable. See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-

30 (4th Cir. 1976). We therefore dismiss this portion of the

appeal. Insofar as De’Lonta appeals the denial of an injunction,

we find that the court applied the proper legal standard and did

not abuse its discretion. See Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough

Medical Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 814-15 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See De’Lonta v.

Angelone, No. CA-99-642-7 (W.D. Va. January 13, 2000). Finally, we

deny DeLonta’s motion to expedite appeal as moot. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
# L_2007183EN.01000301.xml

| 13.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 183/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 183/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 815/2007

of 12 July 2007

entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications: Εξαιρετικό παρθένο ελαιόλαδο ‘Τροιζηνία’ (Exeretiko partheno eleolado ‘Trizinia’) (PDO)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and pursuant to Article 17(2) thereof, Greece's application to enter the designation ‘Εξαιρετικό παρθένο ελαιόλαδο “Τροιζηνία” (Exeretiko partheno eleolado “Trizinia”)’ in the register was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and pursuant to Article 17(2) thereof, Greece's application to enter the designation ‘Εξαιρετικό παρθένο ελαιόλαδο “Τροιζηνία” (Exeretiko partheno eleolado “Trizinia”)’ in the register was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no objections within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 were received by the Commission, this designation should be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no objections within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 were received by the Commission, this designation should be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The designation contained in the Annex to this Regulation shall be entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 July 2007.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 1).

1

(2)  
  OJ C 128, 1.6.2006, p. 11 (corrigendum: OJ C 63, 17.3.2007, p. 7).

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

| Group 1.5. | Oils and fats — Extra virgin olive oil |
| --- | --- |

Group 1.5.

Oils and fats — Extra virgin olive oil

GREECE

Εξαιρετικό παρθένο ελαιόλαδο ‘Τροιζηνία’ (Exeretiko partheno eleolado ‘Trizinia’) (PDO)

---
bbsi-ex1018_414.htm



EXHIBIT 10.18

BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.
SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS 
FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

As of January 1, 2022, compensation arrangements for non-employee directors of Barrett Business Services, Inc. (the "Company"), include an annual retainer of $65,000 ($135,000 for the Chairman of the Board) payable in cash in monthly installments.  Committee chairs receive an annual cash retainer, payable in monthly installments, as follows:  chair of Audit and Compliance Committee, $15,000; chair of Compensation Committee, $10,000; chair of Risk Management Committee, $10,000; and chair of Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, $10,000.  Committee members receive an annual cash retainer, payable in monthly installments, as follows:  Audit and Compliance Committee, $7,500; Compensation Committee, $5,000; Risk Management Committee, $5,000; and Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, $5,000.

The compensation arrangements also contemplate that each non-employee director in office on July 1, 2022, will be granted an award of restricted stock units ("RSUs") under the Company's 2020 Stock Incentive Plan with a grant date fair value of approximately $100,000, based on the closing sale price of the Company’s common stock on that date.  The 2022 RSU awards will vest in full on July 1, 2023, provided that the grantee continues to serve as a director through that date.
Exhibit 10.(ii)(21)

OPERATIVE BOARD RESOLUTION

Adoption of the Long-Term Performance Incentive Program

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the LTPIP, attached hereto as Exhibit B, be and hereby is adopted; and that for purposes of the LTPIP, the Sears, Roebuck and Co. 2000 Employees Stock Plan is amended to change the definition of "Change of Control" to the definition of "Change of Control" set forth in the LTPIP.

 

 

LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PROGRAM  ("LTPIP")
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 March 31, 2015

d0323

Order 

Clerk

March 31, 2015

149230 & (77)(80)(88)

JAMES R. HOLTON and NANCY M.

HOLTON,

Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross- Appellees,

v SC: 149230

COA: 308454

Oakland CC: 2011-121522-CH

CAROLE L. WARD,

Defendant-Appellee/Cross- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file a response brief is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals 

and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant are considered, and they are 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed 

by this Court. The motion for sanctions is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.1 

Certification Pursuant to 

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code), I, Wm. Stacy Locke, President and Chief Executive Officer of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that: 

(1) the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: May 17, 2007
# L_2007282EN.01001101.xml

| 26.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 282/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 282/11

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1252/2007

COMMISSION REGULATION

of 25 October 2007

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 900/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

1

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/2008 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/2008 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

2

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 25 October 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 25 October 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 25 October 2007, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 shall be 36,062 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 26 October 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 October 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 247/2007 (OJ L 69, 9.3.2007, p. 3).

1

(2)  OJ L 196, 28.7.2007, p. 26.

2

---
#### Alan Dino PARENTI, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 04-35030.

D.C. No. CV-03-05457-FDB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 13, 2005.

Alan Dino Parenti, Carlsborg, WA, pro se.

Robert L. Baker, Esq., Charles Bricken, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alan Dino Parenti appeals the decision of the District Court dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his complaint under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 seeking damages from the United States for allegedly improper income tax collection activities. We affirm.

Parenti’s claim for damages is barred first because he has failed to show that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity from suit. Parenti cannot use 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (which authorizes suits against the United States for tax collection misconduct) in order to challenge the IRS determination that Parenti is hable for federal income taxes for 1994. *See Miller v. United States,*66 F.3d 220, 222-23 (9th Cir.1995) (section 7433 does not provide for challenges to the determination of a taxpayer’s liabilities).

Jurisdiction under section 7433 is also lacking over Parenti’s allegation that IRS agents committed misconduct by making an untimely assessment of his federal income taxes for 1994, because Parenti did not establish that the IRS acted intention*905ally, recklessly or negligently in tax collection activities, *Shwarz v. United States,*234 F.3d 428, 434 *&*n. 5 (9th Cir.2000), nor was the assessment time-barred under the statute of limitations.

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following (i) Registration
Statement No. 2-82186 on Form S-8 filed March 3, 1983; (ii) Registration
Statement No. 33-48363 on Form S-8 filed June 3, 1992; (iii) Registration
Statement No. 33-79146 on Form S-8 filed May 19, 1994; (iv) Registration
Statement No. 333-06021 on Form S-8 filed June 14, 1996; (v) Registration
Statement No. 333-48697 on Form S-8 filed March 26, 1998; (vi) Registration
Statement No. 333-57585 on Form S-8 filed June 24, 1998; (vii) Registration
Statement No. 333-46726 on Form S-8 filed September 27, 2000; (viii)
Registration Statement No. 333-55574 on Form S-8 filed February 14, 2001; (ix)
Registration Statement No. 333-87676 on Form S-8 filed May 7, 2002; (x)
Registration Statement No. 333-101538 on Form S-8 filed November 27, 2002; (xi)
Registration Statement No. 333-107321 on Form S-8 filed July 24, 2003 and (xii)
Registration Statement No. 333-110342 on Form S-8 filed November 7, 2003, and in
the related Prospectuses, of our report dated August 9, 2004 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of WMS Industries Inc. and
subsidiaries, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of WMS Industries Inc.
for the year ended June 30, 2004.


                                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Chicago, Illinois
September 1, 2004
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Thomas P. Richards, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Grey Wolf, Inc;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and34-47986];  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures presented in this annual report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s quarter ended December 31, 2003 that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date:  August 9, 2004 By:  /s/ Thomas P. Richards    Thomas P. Richards    Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer