alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE ATLANTA STOVE WORKS, INC. v. R. V. KEEL and wife, BERTHA C. KEEL, and ROBERT ELKS and wife, JESSIE B. ELKS, formerly doing business as FRIENDLY FURNITURE COMPANY.

(Filed 27 September, 1961.)

Partnership § 4—

Where a person denies liability on a partnership debt on the ground that he was a limited partner, but offers no evidence that he signed and swore to the certificate required by G.S. 59-2, or that the requisite certificate was filed for record in the office of the clerk of Superior Court, the court properly gives peremptory instructions on the issue of a general partnership, there being no evidence of an actual or substantial compliance with the statute.

Appeal by defendants from *Cowper, J.,*at February-March 1961 Term of Pitt.

Civil action to recover the unpaid balance of a partnership debt.

In January, 1949, the defendants attempted to form a limited partnership to conduct a retail furniture business under the name of Friendly Furniture Company. Defendants did not sign and swear to a certificate stating the name of the partnership, character of the business, etc., nor was such certificate filed for record in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court. In January, 1959, defendants attempted to extend the partnership for an additional ten years, which extension agreement was neither sworn to nor recorded. The name of defendant R. V. Keel, with his knowledge, appeared on various advertising media of the partnership and was used in connection- with various business transactions of the partnership. A receiver was appointed for Friendly Furniture Company on 23 February, 1960, at which time said company was indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $567.62. The receiver paid the sum of $194.67 on said indebtedness, *422leaving an unpaid balance of $372.95, for which this action was instituted against the named defendants as co-partners.

Judgment by default was taken against defendants Elks and wife. Defendants Keel and wife filed answer in which each denied being a general partner in the business and denied any liability to plaintiff.

Upon conclusion of all the evidence, the court gave peremptory instructions in favor of plaintiff on the issues as to whether or not defendants Keel and wife were general partners in Friendly Furniture Company. The jury found defendants indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $372.95, and from judgment on the verdict defendants Keel and wife appeal to Supreme Court, and assign error.

*Lewis G. Cooper for plaintiff appellee.*

*L. W. Gaylord, Jr., M. E. Cavendish for defendants appellants.*

Per Curiam.

The evidence fails to show either actual or substantial compliance by defendants with the provisions of G.S. 59-2 pertaining to formation of a limited partnership which would relieve them of liability as general partners in the partnership in question. Thus the trial court was correct in giving the jury peremptory instructions on the issues of general partnership. Furthermore, all of defendants’ contentions have been given consideration, and no error is made to appear.

No error.
#### STATE v. MONTGOMERY

No. 30 PC.

Case below: 12 N.C. App. 94.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 October 1971.
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 2 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 3 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 4 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 5 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 6 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 7 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 8 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 9 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 10 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 11 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 12 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 13 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 14 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 15 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 16 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 17 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 18 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 19 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 20 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 21 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 22 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 23 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 24 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 25 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 26 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 27 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 28 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 29 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 30 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 31 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 32 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 33 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 34 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 35 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 36 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 37 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 38 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 39 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 20-3 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 40 of 40
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 23

- 11611

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
JAMES S. MARCELIN,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants,

MR. BILLY, officer, MR. DANIELS, officer, MR. CUNNINGHAM, USCA11 Case: 23-11611 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 06/30/2023 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of t he Court 23

- 11611

officer,

Defendants

- Appellees.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Do cket No. 3:21

- cv

- 00228

- BJD

- PDB

____________________
Before W ILSON , R OSENBAUM , and B RASHER , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte , for lack of jurisdiction. James Marcelin appeals from the district court’s April 6, 2023 order dismissing his claims against defendant Cunningham. That order is not final and appealable, however, because it did not end the litigation on the merits in the district court. See
28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal , 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (stating that a final order ends the litigation on themerits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment). Marcelin’s claims against defendants Billy an d Daniels remain pending before the district court, and the district court did not certify its order for immediate review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant
, USCA11 Case: 23-11611 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 06/30/2023 Page: 2 of 323

- 11611 Opinion of the Court 3

689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not immediately appealable absent certification pursuant to Rule 54(b)). Additionally, the district court’s April 6, 2023 order is not effectively unreviewable on app eal from a final order resolving the case on the merits. Plaintiff A v. Schair , 744 F.3d 1247, 1252

– 53 (11thCir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not conclude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order doctrine if it, inter alia
, is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment”). No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40

- 3 and all other applicable rules. USCA11 Case: 23-11611 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 06/30/2023 Page: 3 of 3
1 The Richard G. Kopf, United States DistrictJudge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2251

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Elias Zamarripa, * also known as Homeboy, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 7, 2006 Filed: February 16, 2006

___________ Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Elias Zamarripa pleaded guilty to c onspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court 1 sentenced him to 188 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal , Zamarripa’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).-2- Having reviewed the record indepe ndently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of th e district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
#### RODIN v. MERRITT

No. 2 PC

Case below: 48 N.C. App. 64

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 November 1980.
O R D E R

After the Attorney Grievance Commission filed its p etition for d isciplinary or

r emedial a ction and r equest for temporary s uspension , the Court issued an order

requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be temporarily suspended

pursuant to Rule 19

- 73 7 ( c ) . Respondent did not file a response.

Upon consideration of the petition for disciplinary or remedial action and

request for temporary suspension

, it is this 27th day of August 2024

, by the Supreme

Court of Maryland,

ORDERED that , pursuant to Rule 19

- 73 7 ( d ), the Respondent, Brian David

O’Neill

, is temporarily suspended from the practice of law in the State of Maryland ;

and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Brian David

O’Neill from the register of attorneys in this Court and shall send notice of t his Order to

the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all Clerks of all

judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 19

- 761.

/s/ Matthew J. Fader

Chi e f Justice ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE

COMMISSION

v.

BRIAN DAVID O’NEILL *

*

*

*

*

* IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

AG No. 5

September Term, 20 2 4
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




August 31, 2009




Mr. Mark A. Blinn

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Flowserve Corporation




Dear Mark:



On behalf of the Board of Directors of Flowserve Corporation (“Flowserve”), I am pleased to confirm
that you will be appointed as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Flowserve effective
October 1, 2009.



Effective upon your appointment as President and Chief Executive Officer, your current employment
agreement with Flowserve dated May 7, 2007, as amended as of November 19, 2008 and February 23,
2009, shall be terminated and cease to be of any further force or effect, and your employment with
Flowserve thereafter will be on an at-will basis. Of course, your existing equity incentive
compensation grants will remain outstanding in accordance with their terms and, to the extent you
are eligible, you will participate (or continue to participate, as the case may be) in the various
compensation and benefit programs maintained by Flowserve in accordance with their terms and
conditions as in effect from time to time.



The existing restrictive covenant agreements between you and Flowserve executed in the past, and
other agreements between you and Flowserve on your use of Flowserve’s confidential information,
your ability to work for a competitor, soliciting employees of Flowserve to leave Flowserve and
soliciting business from Flowserve’s customers all remain in effect.



A term sheet listing your new salary, new annual incentive target award rate and new long term
incentive plan target award rate is attached hereto.



We are excited about this new chapter for Flowserve and have every confidence that you are the
right person to lead Flowserve forward at this critical juncture. We look forward to a long and
productive relationship.



Please acknowledge your acceptance of the terms of this letter agreement by countersigning below
where indicated. This letter agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original but which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.



Very truly yours,




FLOWSERVE CORPORATION




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	/s/ James O. Rollans	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	James O. Rollans	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Chairman of the Board of Directors	 	 






 









 






ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED




	 	 	 
	/s/ Mark A. Blinn
	 	 
	 

Mark A. Blinn

	 	 
	Date: August 31, 2009
	 	 






[Signature Page to Mark A. Blinn Letter Agreement]




 









 








FLS CEO Term Sheet




Term Sheet Items



Salary: $915,000, effective September 1, 2009



Target Bonus %: 100% (2009 Bonus prorated using his August 31st salary and CFO
target for 9 months and his December 31 salary and CEO target for final 3 months.)



LTIP % Target: 300%



Termination w/o Cause: Officer Severance Plan



Termination w/CIC: Executive Officer CIC Plan



Non-Compete: Restrictive Covenants Form Agreement
**EXHIBIT32**

 

            Harry Lee Waterfield II and RaymondL. Carr, being the President and Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,respectively, of Investors Heritage Capital Corporation, hereby certify as ofthis 12th day of November, 2009, that the Form 10-Q for the Quarter endedSeptember 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information containedin the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Investors Heritage Capital Corporation.

 

|   | **INVESTORS			HERITAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION** 
  
BY:  /s/Harry			Lee Waterfield II 
Harry Lee			Waterfield II
DATE: November			12, 2009
President 
  
			BY:  /s/Raymond L. Carr 
Raymond L.			Carr
DATE: November			12, 2009
Vice President			- Chief Financial Officer
 

  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT
15 – Awareness Letter of Deloitte & Touche LLP










August
27, 2009





North
American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc.


5314
South Yale Avenue


Suite
1000


Tulsa,
Oklahoma 74135





We have
reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information
of North American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc. and subsidiary for the
three-month periods ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, as indicated in our report
dated April 20, 2009; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion
on that information.





We are
aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, is incorporated
by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-133848 on Form S-8 and No.
333-61393 on Form S-3 of North American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc. (formerly
Kinark Corporation).





We also
are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the
Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement
prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified
by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that
Act.











/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP





Tulsa,
Oklahoma
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


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


     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 filing of the Form 10-Q
of The Lamson & Sessions Co. (the "Company") for the period ended October 2,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on October
28, 2004 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies that,
to such officer's knowledge:

     (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 as of the dates and for the periods
              expressed in the Report.

     A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report or "filed" for any
purpose whatsoever.


Date:  October 28, 2004



                                      /s/ John B. Schulze
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      John B. Schulze
                                      Chairman of the Board, President and
                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                      (Principal Executive Officer)
Photo by NIOSH 

DO YOUR WORKERS SHOW SIGNS OF FATIGUE? 

If they aren’t getting 7 to 9 hours of recommended sleep each night, your workers might be at risk. In 

the U.S., one in two extraction workers ̃ don’t get enough sleep. Tired workers can experience increased 

negative health outcomes, including diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, and obesity. 

Remember: Good fatigue management is a shared responsibility that enables workers to be well-rested 

and alert on the job. Consider the facts below in deciding how to help workers manage fatigue, and 

make sure your workers are prepared to RISE AND MINE.

Burden of Fatigue in the U.S. 

U.S. Population Mining Population 

Average hours worked per week ̃ 

34 44 

Average hours worked per day ̃ 

8.8 9.6 

Percentage working 60+ hours per week° 

7.2 17.3 

What Increases Fatigue Risk? 

Poor Sleep 

13% of work injuries

can be attributed 

to sleep problems ̨ 

Work Hours 

Long shifts + Night shifts + No breaks= 

more than 2 times 

increased risk of injury ̃

What Lowers Fatigue Risk? 

Educating workers on healthy sleep 

“Smart” shift scheduling 

Rest breaks every few hours 

Voluntary sleep disorder testing 

Reducing demanding tasks at 

end of shift and end of work week 

Alternative commute 

services to and from work 

1. Shockey TM, Wheaton A G [2017]. Short sleep duration by occupation group—29 states, 2013–2014. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 66(8):207. https://dx.doi.org/10.15585%2Fmmwr.mm6608a2 

2. Bureau of Labor Statistics [2019]. Employment, hours, and earnings from the current employment statistics survey. https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?ce 

3. Alterman T, Luckhaupt SE, Dahlhamer JM, Ward BW, Calvert GM [2013]. Prevalence rates of work organization characteristics among workers in the US: data from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. Amer Journal Indust Medicine 56(6):647–659. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22108 

4. Uehli K, Mehta AJ, Miedinger D, Hug K, Schindler C, Holsboer-Trachsler E, Leuppi JD, Künzli N [2014]. Sleep problems and work injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Reviews 18(1):61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2013.01.004 

5. Fischer D, Lombardi DA, Folkard S, Willetts J, Christiani DC [2017]. Updating the “Risk Index”: A systematic review and meta-analysis of occupational injuries and work schedule characteristics. Chronobiology Int 34(10):1423–1438. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2017.1367305
#### STATE v. LOCKLEAR

No. 41 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 671.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 March 1979.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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


     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 filing of the Form 10-Q
of The Lamson & Sessions Co. (the "Company") for the period ended October 4,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on October
30, 2003 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies that,
to such officer's knowledge:

     (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 as of the dates and for the periods
              expressed in the Report.

     A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report or "filed" for any
purpose whatsoever.



Date:  October 30, 2003                  /s/ James J. Abel
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         James J. Abel
                                         Executive Vice President, Secretary,
                                         Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                                         (Principal Financial Officer)


                                       22
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 21, 2012

p0514 

# Order

May 21, 2012

144403

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 14 4403 COA: 298234 Wayne CC: 10-000963-FH RUSSELL FRANK VALLEAU, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 22, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.