alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE EDWARD SPENCE, NORA SPENCE, AND MAMIE SPENCE.

(Filed 18 October, 1961.)

Appeal by petitioner from *Hooks, S.*/., April 1961 Term of WayNE.

Edna S. Bailey, mother of the named infants, filed a petition alleging she then had custody of Edward, the oldest child; Zeno Spence, father of the children, had custody of the two youngest; the home maintained by the father was not a suitable place for the children to live, nor was respondent a suitable person to have the custody of the children.

The father answered, denying the allegations with respect to his fitness to have custody. He asserted petitioner abandoned him and the children in September 1957. She went to Nevada and in November 1957 obtained a divorce from respondent, who was by that decree awarded custody of all three children. He had had the care and custody of the children since petitioner abandoned them. He alleged petitioner who had remarried in December 1957, was not a proper person to have custody.

Judge Hooks, after hearing the evidence, made findings of fact. He found respondent to be a fit and suitable person and his home a suitable place for the rearing of the children. His eighth finding reads: “That the best interest and welfare of said three minor children will be served and promoted by being in the care and custody of the respondent, their father, with some regular period of visitation with the petitioner, their mother.”

Based on the findings, the court awarded custody to the father, but permitted petitioner to have custody from 15 June to 15 August each year. From the judgment so entered petitioner appealed.

*Braswell & Strickland for petitioner appellant.*

*Paul B. Bdmundson, Jr. and William A. Dees, Jr. for respondent appellee.*

Pee Cueiam.

There are no exceptions to the findings of fact. The *527judgment awarding custody based on the findings, particularly finding number 8, was properly entered. *In re Gibbons,*245 N.C. 24, 95 S.E. 2d 85; s.c. 247 N.C. 273, 101 S.E. 2d 16.

The exception to the admission in evidence of letters from petitioner commending respondent for the manner in which he had cared for the children is without merit. They contradict the assertion now made that respondent has always neglected his children.

Affirmed.
#### KNOWLES v. COACH CO.

No. 252 PC.

Case below: 41 N.C. App. 709.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 September 1979.
Case 1:07-cv-03512-JSR Document 6 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03512-JSR Document 6 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          49,617
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     51,172
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               144,967
<PP&E>                                         133,999
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,992
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 256,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,407
<BONDS>                                        129,050
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,533
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,264)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   256,416
<SALES>                                        157,376
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               157,376
<CGS>                                          112,225
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,225
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,614
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,160
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,948
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,212
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,212
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1



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


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Keystone  Consolidated  Industries,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A-1 for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
David L. Cheek,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Keystone  Consolidated  Industries,  Inc.  and will be retained by
Keystone  Consolidated  Industries,  Inc. and  furnished to the SEC or its staff
upon request.




/s/  David L. Cheek
------------------------------------------
David L. Cheek
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 29, 2003
|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /S/ JOSEPH V. TARANTO                                            |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Joseph      V. Taranto                                           |
| Chairman      and                                                |
|       Chief      Executive Officer |

| /S/ DOMINIC J. ADDESSO                                           |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dominic      J. Addesso                                          |
| Executive      Vice President and                                |
|       Chief      Financial Officer |
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 2 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 3 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 4 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 5 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 6 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 7 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 8 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 9 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 10 of 10
#### WILLIFORD v. WILLIFORD

No. 410PC

No. 151 (Fall Term)

Case below: 48 N.C. App. 226

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 7 October 1980.
Exhibit 13.2  Section 906 Certificate  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, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Luxfer Holdings PLC, a public limited company incorporated under English law (the company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:  The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the Form 20-F) of the company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.  Date:   March 31, 2014
/s/   Andrew Michael BeadenAndrew   Michael BeadenGroup   Finance Director
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1


Livongo Health, Inc.
Equity Award Acceleration Policy
Livongo Health, Inc. (the “Company”) desires to formalize a policy regarding the effect of a holder’s death on his or her equity awards covering shares of the Company’s common stock, including stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, stock appreciation rights, performance units, performance shares and/or any other equity-based awards (each, an “Equity Award”).
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any plan, agreement, or arrangement governing an Equity Award, upon a holder’s death while the holder is a service provider of the Company, the vesting of any Equity Award will accelerate as to 75% of the then-unvested shares subject to such Equity Award (“Accelerated Shares”).  For any Equity Award subject to performance-based vesting, the vesting of such Equity Award will accelerate as to 75% of the shares subject to such Equity Award that would have otherwise vested assuming target level of performance or any applicable binary performance condition was achieved.
Further, with respect to the then-unvested shares subject to such Equity Award at death that are not Accelerated Shares (the “Remaining Shares”), such Remaining Shares shall not revert back to the share pool of the applicable equity compensation plan.  Instead, in honor of the deceased Equity Award holder, the Company intends to make a donation of a number of shares of Company common stock equal to the Remaining Shares to Living on the Go Foundation.
The provisions of this policy shall apply to all Equity Awards (whether under the Company’s 2019 Equity Incentive Plan, the 2014 Stock Incentive Plan, the 2008 Stock Incentive Plan or any successor equity compensation plan of the Company or an equity incentive plan under which awards are assumed by the Company in a transaction) unless the Company’s Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors specifically determines otherwise with respect to any Equity Award.
CERTIFICATION

I, Derek L. Caldwell, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lincoln International
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;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

                                                   /s/ DEREK L. CALDWELL
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Name:  Derek L. Caldwell
                                                   Title: President
                                                   Date:  August 22, 2005
Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 6 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 1 of 1
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 19

- 00874

- CR

Mark Stephan Knapp, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COUR T OF LEE COUNTY

NO. 26204, THE HONOR ABLE PAUL E. FISCHER , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Mark Stephan Knapp has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. The

motion is signed by both appellant and his attorney. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). We g rant the

motion and dismiss the appeal. See id

.

____________ ________ ____ __________________

Gisela D. Triana , Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: January 24, 2020

D o Not Publish
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Past Conflicts             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns             
  -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing 
-  News & Stories    -  Recent News & Stories             
  -  News Releases             
  -  Livestreams             
  -  Year In Review             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  Volunteer		 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

-  FIRST 
-   
-   
- 4
- 5
- 6 (current)
- 7
- 8
-   
-   
-  LAST
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 19 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 19 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 19 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 19 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 4 of 4
#### W. S. BOYD SALES COMPANY, INC. v. MARVIN WILSON SEYMOUR.

(Filed 22 November, 1961.)

Abatement and Revival § 3—

Where it appears that the action instituted by plaintiff in the Superior Court of *one county is*based upon the same cause of action as that of a prior action instituted in ,the Superior Court of another county of the State by the defendant in the second action against the plaintiff in the second action, the second action is properly dismissed upon plea in abatement, since the parties and the cause of action in both cases are the same. G.S. 1-127.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Mintz, J.,*at July Assigned Civil Term *1961,*of Wake.

Civil action to recover for alleged breach of contract in respect to purchase by defendant Seymour from plaintiff Sales Company a certain Autocar Diesel Sleeper.

The record shows that the judgment from which this appeal is taken recites that “it appearing that this action was filed in the Superior Court of Wake County on May 4, 1961; that prior thereto an action entitled ‘Marvin Wilson Seymour, plaintiff v. W. S. Boyd Sales Company, Incorporated, defendant’ was on the first day of April, 1961, filed in the Superior Court of Currituck County; that the action filed in Currituck County is an action between the same parties for the same cause of action and in a court of like jurisdiction as the action filed in the court as above entitled; that this action is abated by the action which was prior brought and pending in Currituck County.”

And thereupon it was ordered by the court that this action be and the same is hereby dismissed and stricken from the docket, — taxing the Boyd Sales Company with the costs.

The Sales Company excepts to the conclusions of the court and the judgment rendered, and appeals to the Supreme Court.

*715
      *Bailey & Dixon for plaintiff appellant.*

*J. W. Jennette for defendant appellee.*

WiNBORNE, C.J.

It will be noted that the complaint in the action in the Currituck County case is set out in the record on this appeal. Comparing it with the complaint in the action brought in the Superior Court of Wake County, it is seen that the two actions pertain to the same subject matter, as found by Judge Mintz. The parties named in the action in Wake County and those named in Currituck County are identical, and constitute actions between the same parties for the same cause. Both are in courts of like jurisdiction. Hence, this action in Wake County, having been brought subsequent to the action in Currituck County, abates. G.S. 1-127. See also *McDowell v. Blythe Bros.,*236 N.C. 396, 72 S.E. 2d 860.

Decisions of this Court uniformly hold that the pendency of a prior action between the same parties for the same cause of action in a State court of competent jurisdiction works an abatement of a subsequent action either in the same court or in another court of the State having jurisdiction. Therefore, the action of the Superior Court of Wake County in dismissing this action is

Affirmed.
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 1 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 2 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 3 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 4 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 5 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 6 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 7 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 8 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 9 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 10 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 11 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 12 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 13 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 14 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 15 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 16 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 17 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 18 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 19 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 20 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 21 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 22 of 23

Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF     Document 23-11      Filed 02/12/2008     Page 23 of 23
Case 7:07-cv-03511-CLB-MDF Document 3 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03511-CLB-MDF Document 3 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 2 of 2
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# Person To Contact for Information:

Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-4967 Filed 10-3-07; 1:16 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M