alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 97-30400 Summary Calendar

HENRY MCFARLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CV-2183

- - - - - - - - - - February 13, 1998 Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Henry McFarland appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of supplemental security income. McFarland contends that the findings of the administrative law judge (ALJ) were not supported by substantial evidence. McFarland specifically challenges the ALJ’s findings regarding his ability to perform alternate work, his subjective complaints of pain, and a sit/stand limitation.No. 97-30400 -2- McFarland also contends that the ALJ erred in relying on the medical-vocational guidelines, that the Appeals Council erred in failing to consider additional medical evidence, and that the district court erred in failing to remand the case to the Commissioner for additional evidence. After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we find no reversible error. The Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards. See Falco v. Shalala , 27 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
#### William Ebling et al., Appellants, *v.*Francis J. Nekarda et al., Defendants, and Mendel Pressberger, Respondent.

*Ebling*v. *Pressberger,*171 App. Div. 947, affirmed.

(Argued October 28, 1918;

decided November 12, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 7, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant, respondent, entered upon a dismissal of the complaint as to him by the court on trial at Special Term. This action was brought by the plaintiffs, as minority stockholders of the Home Alliance Realty Company; one of the defendants, to recover, upon its behalf, the sum of $14,000, from which it was alleged the corporation was divested, through a conspiracy conceived and executed by the defendants Nekarda and Orbach, and in which conspiracy the defendants Pressberger and Tenner were aiders and abettors. It was alleged that the defendant Pressberger was under contract to purchase a tract of land situated at Valley Stream, L. I., comprising about seventy-six acres; that he employed one Edlich to sell his contract to purchase, and that Edlich, in turn, employed the defendant Tenner as a subagent; that Nekarda and Orbach, who were the promoters and officers of the defendant Home Alliance Realty Company and bore the relation of trust to it, entered into a conspiracy with Tenner and Pressberger by which the selling price of the land which was purchased through the efforts of Orbach and Nekarda by the Home Alliance Realty Company was fixed at $1,200 an acre, although Pressberger was willing to sell at $1,000 an acre, and the difference, amounting to $14,000, was paid to Nekarda by Pressberger for division among Orbach, Tenner and Nekarda.

*William E.*Cook, *Henry A. Petersen*and *Joseph H. Kohan*for appellants.

*Clayton J, Hoer manco*for respondent.

*681Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo and Pound, JJ. Absent: Andrews, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

-% 

In re Fosamax Froducts Liability : 

Lit lgdt ion 

- - - - - - - - . .. - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

This Gocutnent Re2ates to: 

All Actions. ----.----------------------------- -X 

JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District 3udge: 

After considering the letters subinltted 

the !:our-t w:ll r,ot enter M~rck's propc~ed order regarding rases 

filed by BeatFe and Osbdrrt, LLP that involve less t!~an three 

zcntinuous years of Fosamax use. Whether fir not Fcsa~nax call cause 

ONJ in anyone before three years of use remains an open quest-ion 

that should be resolved uniformly on the basla of the scientific 

evidence generated a£ ter a f gll opporturli tls for dir;covery. 

Thc parties are directed tc7 agree upsn and submit to the 

Court by October 7, 20ila a case managemuilt order Froposlng: (1) a 

sckdule to con~plete all generic expert discovery In this MDL; and 

(2) a schedule for summary judqn-tent mot-ions. In the event that the 

parties cannot reach agreement, by the same date each shall submit 

~ts own PI-oposal dlcng with a letter brief In support of it, and 

appear for a conference in ~ourtrooni 20C on Octobei- 16, 2005 at 

1G:30 am. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: New York, New York 

September 9, 2008 

I 

1 

JOHN F. KEENAN 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03466-JFK Document 37 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03398-BSJ Document 9 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000057497
<NAME> THE LAMSON & SESSIONS CO.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,180
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,588
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,071
<INVENTORY>                                     55,486
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               127,832
<PP&E>                                         121,309
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,271
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 205,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,303
<BONDS>                                         35,150
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,350
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,969
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   205,429
<SALES>                                         91,284
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,284
<CGS>                                           64,376
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,376
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,462
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (75)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 921
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,525
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,394
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,131
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,131
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52


</TABLE>
Exhibit 15.10





[LETTERHEAD OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.]





Consent of Independent Consultant







We consent to the reference to our firm in the form and context in which they appear in this Annual Report on Form 20-F, the inclusion of our reports herein, and to the incorporation by the reference in any Registration Statement on Form F-3 and related Prospectus Supplements of CNOOC Limited for the registration of debt securities and guarantees previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.












/s/ Ryder Scott Company, L.P.Ryder Scott Company, L.P.TBPE Firm Registration No. F-1580


Houston, Texas
 
 April 21, 2015
#### JEANE JUNKER MORRIS v. KENT B. MORRIS

No. 51

(Filed 2 December 1980)

Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals finding no error in a trial in MECKLENBURG District Court, *Judge Clifton E. Johnson*presiding, in which the jury found for defendant. The Court of Appeals’ opinion, 46 N.C. App. 701,266 S.E. 2d 381 (1980), is by Judge Parker with Judge Arnold concurring. Judge Webb dissented. The appeal, therefore, comes by way of G.S. 7A-30 (2).

*Walker, Palmer & Miller, P.A., by James E. Walker and Robert P. Johnston, Attorneys for Plaintiff appellant.*

*CraighiU, Rendleman, Clarkson, Ingle & Blythe, P.A., by John R. Ingle, Attorneys for Defendant appellee.*

PER CURIAM.

In this action for alimony without divorce on grounds of abandonment and non-support, the defense was constructive abandonment of defendant by plaintiff. Aside from routine evidentiary and jury instruction questions, the principal conten*ion of appellant is that the trial judge erroneously placed upon her uie burden of proving that defendant’s abandonment was without justification, or at least placed upon her a heavier burden in this regard than the law allows, or ought to allow. We have carefully examined each of appellant’s assignments of error in light of the record and her brief. The Court of Appeals’ majority opinion has dealt fully and properly with each of them. For the reasons given in that opinion, therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Justice BROCK did not participate in the consideration and decision of this case.
Exhibit 1.4

                      AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

                              DATED AUGUST 25, 2004


RESOLVED,  that Article 39 of the current  Articles be amended by adding Article
39(c), as following:

"(c) In addition to the directors  appointed in accordance  with Article  39(a),
the Company shall appoint one additional director (the "Unclassified  Director")
for a one (1) year term and until the following  Annual General Meeting to serve
on the Company's Board of Directors, such Unclassified Director to be elected at
the Annual  General  Meeting,  by the vote of the  holders of a majority  of the
voting power represented at such meeting in person or by proxy and voting on the
election  of  the  Unclassified  Director.  The  Unclassified  Director  may  be
classified  as a Class II Director at any time by a  resolution  of the Board of
Directors (not including such Unclassified  Director). In addition, the position
of such  Unclassified  Director may be  classified as a Class II Director at any
time by a resolution of the Board of Directors (not including such  Unclassified
Director),  whether  or not such  position  is  vacant  at such  time.  Upon the
submission  of any  tender  offer  (as  defined  in the  Companies  Law) for the
Company's  shares,   such  Unclassified   Director  and  the  position  of  such
Unclassified  Director (even if vacant) shall  automatically  be classified as a
Class II Director (unless  determined  otherwise by a resolution of the Board of
Directors (not including such  Unclassified  Director) adopted within 30 days of
the announcement of such Tender Offer).  Upon any such classification as a Class
II  Director,  the  director  then  serving as an  Unclassified  Director  shall
continue to serve on the Company's Board of Directors as a Class II Director and
shall be subject to re-election  with the Class II Directors.  Once the position
of the  Unclassified  Director is classified  as a Class II Director,  then that
position  will remain a Class II Director and the  position of the  Unclassified
Director shall no longer exist.  The  Unclassified  Director may be removed from
office in  accordance  with the  provisions  of Article 39(b) which shall apply,
mutatis mutandis."
Case 7:07-cv-03456-KMK-MDF     Document 9      Filed 06/13/2007     Page 1 of 3

Case 7:07-cv-03456-KMK-MDF     Document 9      Filed 06/13/2007     Page 2 of 3

Case 7:07-cv-03456-KMK-MDF     Document 9      Filed 06/13/2007     Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.4

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation
(the "Company") for the period ending July 31, 2002, I, D. Michael Parker,
Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kewaunee
Scientific Corporation;

     (2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;

     (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;


Date:  September 12, 2002

                                             /s/ D. Michael Parker
                                        --------------------------------
                                        D. Michael Parker
                                        Senior Vice President, Finance
                                         and Chief Financial Officer
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 on Form 10-Q of Keane, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, John J. Leahy, Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|                           |  |                                                                                                               
|-------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated:    November 4, 2004 |  | /s/ John J. LeahyJohn J. Leahy
Senior Vice President of Finance and
Administration and Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A0 91 8 . AL OZ ELCI A/ K/ A ALI OZ W LCI v

. I RFAN POYRAZ

.

In Decem b er 2 0 0 8, t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered a ju d g m en t i n fav o r o f t he p l ai n t i ff

i n t h i s ci vi l cas e. In No v em b er 2 0 1 3

, D efen dan t Al Ozel ci fi led a M o t i o n fo r New

Tri al o r t o Set As i d e t h e J u d gm en t

, arg u i n g es s en t i al ly t h at t h e t ri al co u rt l ack ed

ju ri s d i ct i o n t o en t er t h e ju d g m en t b ecau s e Ozel ci d i d n o t recei ve t h e req u is i t e n o t i ce

o f p re-t ri al o rd ers

. Aft er th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed h i s m o t i o n , Ozel ci fi l ed t h i s ap p eal

. W e l ack ju ri sd ict i o n

. Al t h ou g h a m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al g en eral l y ex t en d s t h e t i m e i n wh i ch t o fi le a

n o t i ce o f ap p eal

, s u ch a m o t i o n i s n o t v al i d u n l es s i t i s fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s aft er en t ry

o f ju d g m en t

. See OCGA § 5 -5 -4 0 (a); W r ig h t v. Rh o d

es , 19 8 G a. Ap p. 26 9 (4 0 1 SE2 d

3 5 ) (1 9 9 0 ). Here, O zel ci fi l ed h i s m o t i o n n earl y fi v e y ears aft er t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s en t ry

o f ju d g m en t , an d t h u s t h e m o t i o n i s v o i d an d d id no t ex t en d t h e t i m e t o ap p eal . See

W r ig h t

, s u p ra.

M o reo v er, i t ap p ears t h at Ozel ci ’ s l ack -o f-n o t i ce arg u m en t is m o s t accu rat el y

ch aract eri zed as o n e s eek i n g rel i ef p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 9 -1 1 -6 0 (d ). See Ta yl or v.

Ch es t er , 2 07 Ga. Ap p

. 2 1 7 (4 2 7 SE2 d 5 8 2 ) (1 9 9 3). To o b t ai n rev i ew o f th e d en i al

o f s u ch an o rd er, an ap p el lan t m u s t fo l l o w t h e d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal p ro ced u res

. See

OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (8 ); Ro g er s v. Es ta t e o

f Ha r ri s , 2 7 6 Ga. Ap p

. 8 98

, 8 9 9 (6 2 5 SE2 d

6 5 ) (2 0 0 5 ). Ozel ci d i d n o t fo l l o w t h o s e p ro ced u res h ere.

Fo r t h es e reas o n s , we l ack ju ri sd i ct io n t o co n s i d er Ozel ci ’ s ap p eal

, an d i t i s

h ereb y DISM ISSED. March 23, 2016C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 03/23/2016
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 9 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 1 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 9 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 2 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 9 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 3 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 9 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 4 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 9 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 5 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 9 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 6 of 6
#### STATE v. WILLINGHAM

No. 81 PC.

Case below: 16 N.C. App. 439.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 December 1972.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces a meeting of the Department of Defense Historical Advisory Committee. The committee will discuss the Department of the Navy Historical Advisory Subcommittee's report and recommendations. The meeting will be open to the public.

# DATES:

Tuesday, October 16th, 2007 at 10 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held on the 5th Floor, Suite 5000, 1777 North Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mrs. Pamela Bennett at 703-588-7889 or Ms. Carolyn Thorne at 703-588-7890 for information, and/or upon arrival at the building in order to be admitted.

Dated: September 20, 2007.

C.R. Choate,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 07-4754  Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ISSUER'S
INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED MARCH 31, 2000, SET FORTH IN THE ACCOMPANYING
FORM 10-q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U. S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<CASH>                                             421
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                       342
<INVENTORY>                                      5,225
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,813
<PP&E>                                          38,969
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,285
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,809
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,658
<BONDS>                                         19,665
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           819
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,809
<SALES>                                         10,921
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,921
<CGS>                                            8,262
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,682
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   313
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 212
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (286)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (126)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (160)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (160)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)


</TABLE>
#### EUDY v. EUDY

No. 38 PC.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 516.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 2 April 1975.
Document

Exhibit 10.27


SECOND ADDENDUM TO STANDARD INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL MULTI-TENANT LEASE – NET DATED JANUARY 13, 2012 BY AND BETWEEN RGS PROPERTIES, AS LESSOR AND EXAGEN DIAGNOSTICS, INC. AS LESSEE, FOR THE PREMISES LOCATED AT 1261 LIBERTY WAY, SUITE B AND C, CALIFORNIA.


Lessor and Lessee mutually agree to amend the lease as follows:


Paragraph 1.3 (Term):
The Lease Term will be extended to the new Expiration Date of January 31, 2018




Paragraph 50 (Rent Schedule):
Base Rent shall be as follows:


						
	Dates	Base Rent
	February 1, 2017 - January 31, 2018	$12,705.44 per month




All other terms and conditions of the existing Lease shall remain in full force and effect.


This addendum shall automatically expire if not executed by Lessee on or before Wednesday, April 13, 2016.






									
	LESSOR:		LESSEE:
	RGS Properties		Exagen Diagnostics, Inc.
			
			
	By: /s/ Greg Smith		By: /s/ Ron Rocca
			
	By: /s/ Scott Smith		Title: CEO
			
	Date: 4/29/2016		Date: 4/29/2016