alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John D. Smith, plaintiff in error, *vs.*P. L. Turnley, administrator, defendant in error.

The conditional affirmance of the judgment of the Superior Court by this Court, which requires the defendant in error, who was plaintiff below, to write off a portion of the verdict, the whole amount of which was in controversy, does not entitle the plaintiff in error to enter judgment in the Court below for the costs incurred in the Superior Court when the defendant in error complies with the condition.

Costs in Supreme Court. Before Judge Parrott. Floyd Superior Court. January Term, 1872.

John D. Smith moved to enter up a judgment against P. L. Turnley, as administrator, for the costs in a case carried to the Supreme Court of Georgia, in which said Smith was plaintiff in error, and said Turnley as administrator, defendant in error. The judgment of the Supreme Court, which was made the judgment of the Superior Court, was as follows :

“ John I). Smith, plaintiff in error, *vs.*P. L. Turnley, administrator, defendant in error.

“This case came before the Court upon a transcript of the record from the Superior Court of Floyd county, and after argument had, it is considered and adjudged by the Court that the judgment of the Court below be affirmed, with direction that the plaintiff write off from the verdict of the jury the amount in excess of the rent due by the parties for their actual occupancy of the premises, with legal interest thereon, or, in default, that a new trial be granted.

“Bill of Costs. — Entering case, six dollars. Recording opinion, six dollars. Remitter, two dollars. Sheriff’s fee, one dollar and twenty-five cents. $15 25.”

The verdict was reduced, according to the directions of the Supreme Court. The Court overruled the motion to enter up a judgment for the costs, and movant excepted, and now assigns said ruling as error.

*455E. N. Broyles, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant.

Montgomery, Judge.

Incident to the judgment are the costs. This has been the law since the statute of Gloucester, (6 Edition, 1,) chapter 1, section 2. By 43 Elizabeth, chapter 6, if, in any personal action, with certain exceptions, the debt or damages to be recovered shall not amount to forty shillings, then the plaintiff can recover no more costs than damages: 2 Tidd’s Pr., 945, etc. If defendant pleads and proves tender of the whole sum due, he recovers costs. But if the plaintiff should succeed, on the trial, in proving a larger sum to be due than that tendered, though that sum be below forty shillings, yet the plaintiff will be entitled to costs: 3 BL, 304, *n.*In the case at bar, no tender was. made of any amount, but the whole sum was controverted, and the judgment of this Court invoked to set aside the whole verdict. The plaintiff in error “failed” to accomplish this, and is therefore “liable for the costs:” Code, 3625. There was no “judgment of reversal,” but it was “ considered and adjudged that the judgment of the Court below be affirmed, with direction,” etc.: Code, 4225.

Judgment affirmed.
FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JULY 19 2000 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 99-12216

________________________ D. C. Docket No. 96-02399-CV-TWT-1 DANIEL WEBSTER and PEGGY WEBSTER, et al., Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants, WEBSTER GREEN THUMB COMPANY, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,
versus FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, MIKE KENN; MICHAEL HIGHTOWER, et al., Defendants-Cross-Appellees.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________ (July 19, 2000) Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, DUBINA and HILL, Circuit Judges.1 We decline to address appellants’ challenge to the scope of the injunction. The argument was not presented to the district court; rather, it was raised for the first time on appeal. 2 PER CURIAM: The judgment of the district court is a ffirmed on the basis of the opinion of the district court published at 51 F.Supp.2d 1354 (N.D. Ga. 1999). AFFIRMED. 1
[No. 24478.

Department One.

July 7, 1933.]

#### H. E. Hanna *et al., Respondents,*v. William Bodler *et al., Appellants.*
      *1*

*W. D. Scott,*for appellants.

*Harry M. Morey,*for respondents.

Reported in 23 P. (2d) 396.

Millard, J.

This action was brought by a husband and wife to recover from the owners and a tenant of a building in Spokane for personal injuries sustained by the wife as the result of her fall into a unguarded area-way of the defendant owners’ building. A jury was empaneled to try the cause. At the conclusion of plaintiffs ’ case in chief, defendants moved for a nonsuit, and *461the court announced that the motion would he granted. Plaintiffs made a motion for a new trial on three distinct statutory grounds, as follows: Irregularity in the proceedings of the court; insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision, and that the order granting a nonsuit was against the law; and error in law occurring in the trial and excepted to at the time by the plaintiffs. The court granted the motion. The defendants have appealed from the order granting the new trial.

The order granting the new trial was general; that is, it does not appear therefrom on which one or more of the several grounds set out in the motion the order is rested. We have consistently adhered to the rule that

“ ... where a motion for a new trial is based on several grounds, and the order does not disclose the ground on which it is rested, the order will not be disturbed on review if it can be soundly rested on any of the stated grounds.” *Applewhite v. Wayne,*152 Wash. 62, 277 Pac. 84.

Except where pure questions of law are involved, the granting or refusing to grant a new trial is discretionary with the trial court.

Appellants ’ motion for nonsuit should not have been granted. There was evidence tending to prove that an unguarded areaway,*which was not properly lighted, was adjacent to a sidewalk intended for the use of the public; that appellants, or their tenant, or both, permitted that dangerous situation to continue; and that, by reason thereof, the respondent wife was injured. The respondents made a prima facie case. The evidence adduced by respondents, if believed to be true, would have warranted the jury in returning a verdict in favor of respondents.

The trial court cross-examined respondent *462wife. During that cross-examination, the court indulged in argument with the witness to such an extent that the court may have believed that the respondents did not have a fair trial. That ground, and the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the granting of the motion for a nonsuit, which involved the discretionary powers of the court, were stated in the motion for a new trial. On either ground, the order granting the new trial can soundly rest. On either ground, the court could have granted the motion without abusing its discretion. As the order granting the new trial does not disclose that it did not do so, the order must be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Tolman, Mitchell, and Holcom:b, JJ., concur.

Beals, O. J., concurs in the result.
#### Byron Alford and another v. Eugene Cobb and another.

Order denying motion for restitution vacated and motion granted as to the plaintiffs, with ten dollars costs of motion to be paid by the plaintiffs and denied as to the plaintiffs’ attorney, Mr. Bolles, with ten dollars costs to him to be paid by the defend-
United States Bankruptcy Court

Northern District of California

In re: PG&E CORPORATION and Chapter 11

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Case No.: 19-30088 (DM)

Debtors Jointly Administered

TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(a). Transferee

hereby gives notice pursuant to Rule 3001(e)(2), Fed. R. Bankr. P., of the transfer, other than for security,

of the claim referenced in this evidence and notice.

Sencha Funding, LLC Cowen Special Investments LLC

Name of Transferee Name of Transferor

Name and Address where notices to transferee Court Claim #: 2345

should be sent Claim Amount: $ 780,037.33

Date Claim Filed: 4/12/2019

Sencha Funding, LLC

c/o Farallon Capital Management, L.L.C.

One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2100 Phone: 646-646-3032

San Francisco, CA 94111

Attn: Michael G. Linn

Tel: 1 415 421 2132

Email: mlinn@faralloncapital.com

Last Four Digits of Acct #: ______N/A______ Last Four Digits of Acct. #: ____N/A_____

Name and Address where transferee payments 

should be sent (if different from above)

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice is true and correct to the best

of my knowledge and belief.

By:_/s/ Andrew A. Jones_______________ Date: June 20, 2019

Transferee/Transferee’s Agent

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 & 3571.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2686 Filed: 06/20/19 Entered: 06/20/19 14:30:21 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2686 Filed: 06/20/19 Entered: 06/20/19 14:30:21 Page 2 of

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

Exhibit B 

EP Agreements and EP Amendments 

Counterparty EP Agreement EP Amendment Cure Amount 

Hummingbird 

Energy Storage, 

LLC

Energy Storage Resource Adequacy 

Agreement dated June 1, 2018, as 

previously amended by letters dated 

October 11, 2018, November 27, 2018 

and March 28, 2019.

Amendment to 

Energy Storage Resource Adequacy 

Agreement dated July 31, 2019. 

$0 

mNOC AERS 

LLC

Behind the Retail Meter Capacity 

Storage Agreement dated June 1, 2018, 

as previously amended by letters dated 

October 11, 2018 and November 27, 

2018.

Amendment to 

Capacity Storage Agreement dated July 

31, 2019. 

$0 

Re Gaskell West 

3 LLC

Power Purchase Agreement dated 

September 22, 2017.

Amendment to 

Power Purchase Agreement dated July 

31, 2019.

$0 

Re Gaskell West 

4 LLC

Power Purchase Agreement dated 

September 22, 2017.

Amendment to 

Power Purchase Agreement dated July 

31, 2019.

$0 

Re Gaskell West 

5 LLC

Power Purchase Agreement dated 

September 22, 2017.

Amendment to 

Power Purchase Agreement dated July 

31, 2019.

$0 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3345-2 Filed: 07/31/19 Entered: 07/31/19 18:46:03 Page 1

of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           13222
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             693
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 28861
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            3000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              2982
<LOANS>                                         397127
<ALLOWANCE>                                       4237
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  448003
<DEPOSITS>                                      411261
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               2539
<LONG-TERM>                                       1839
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         18262
<OTHER-SE>                                       14102
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  448003
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  17194
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  127
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   929
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 18250
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                8543
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8709
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             9541
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      480
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   4567
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5292
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        2159
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3133
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .82
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.98
<LOANS-NON>                                       1474
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  3787
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       30
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 4237
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              4237
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            436


</TABLE>
GERALD MCCLAREY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-3635

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

Gerald McClarey, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5111 

AN ACT 

To improve the response to victims of child sex trafficking. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5111 EH

1 SECTION 1. RESPONSE TO VICTIMS OF CHILD SEX TRAF2 FICKING. 

3 Section 404(b)(1)(P)(iii) of the Missing Children’s 

4 Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5773(b)(1)(P)(iii)) is amended 

5 by striking ‘‘child prostitution’’ and inserting ‘‘child sex 

6 trafficking, including child prostitution’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5111 

AN ACT 

To improve the response to victims of child sex 

trafficking.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. AP -76,881

EX P ARTE DAVID G ONZA LEZ, Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 20050D05891 IN THE 409T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM EL P ASO COUNTY

Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of two counts of indece ncy with a child by

exposure and sente nced to thirty months’ imprisonment on each c ount. He did not appe al his convictions. Applicant contends that his g uilty plea was involuntary beca use he was l ed t o believe that he would have to r eg ister as a sex off ender for only

ten y ear s, when in fa ct he will have to reg ister for life. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 62. 1 0 1 (a )( 3 ). The trial court made finding s of fac t and conclusions of law and rec ommended that we set aside one count. Relief is g rante d. Count four of2

the j udg ment in cause number 20050D05891 in the 409t h District Court of El Paso County is set aside, and Applicant i s rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of El Paso County to answe r the char g es as set out in count four of t he indi ctment. The trial court shall issue any n ec es s ar y bench

war rant within 10 day s after

the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to th e T e xa s D e p a r tm e n t o f Cr iminal J ustice–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: September

19, 2012 Do not publish
ex103.htm












PROMISSORY NOTE







USD $4,700                                                                                              Date:  April 29, 2016












TO:  Adam Elmquist







The undersigned, APP Incline Corporation  (the “Borrower”), HEREBY PROMISES TO PAY to the order of Adam Elmquist no later than October 29, 2016 (the “Payment Date”), Four Thousand Seven Hundred United States Dollars (USD $4,700) (the “Loan Amount”).  The Loan Amount shall accrue interest monthly at a rate of Ten (10%) percent per annum.  Interest shall be due and payable on the Payment Date.







If suit is brought on this Note, or if it is placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, after any default in payment, the Borrower promises and agrees to pay all costs of collection, including lawyers’ fees, incurred thereby.







For value received, the Borrower waives presentment, demand, protest and notice of demand, protest and nonpayment and consents to any and all renewals and extensions of the time of payment hereof, binds himself to obligations under this Note as principals and not as sureties, and further agrees that at any time the terms of payment hereof may be modified or security released without affecting the liability of any part of this Note or any person liable or to become liable with respect to any indebtedness evidenced hereby.












                           

/s/Adam Elmquist


By:Adam Elmquist


APP Incline Corporation
|                                      |   |                                   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
| Name                                      |   | State or Jurisdiction of Incorporation |
|                                      |   |                                   |
| Alabama Sand and Gravel, Inc.             |   | Delaware                               |
| Globe Metales S.A.                        |   | Argentina                              |
| Globe Metallurgical, Inc.                 |   | Delaware                               |
| LF Resources, Inc.                        |   | Delaware                               |
| Ningxia Yongvey Coal Industrial Co., Ltd. |   | China                                  |
| Solsil, Inc.                              |   | Delaware                               |
| Ultracore Energy S.A.                     |   | Argentina                              |
| Ultra Core Corporation                    |   | Illinois                               |
| West Virginia Alloys, Inc.                |   | Delaware                               |
| GSM Alloys I, Inc.                        |   | Delaware                               |
| GSM Alloys II, Inc.                       |   | Delaware                               |
| WVA Manufacturing, LLC                    |   | Delaware                               |
| Globe Metals Enterprises, Inc.            |   | Delaware                               |
| Core Metals Group Holdings LLC            |   | Delaware                               |
| Core Metals Group LLC                     |   | Delaware                               |
| Tennessee Alloys Company, LLC             |   | Delaware                               |
EX-10.3A



 Exhibit 10.3A 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE HISTOGENICS CORPORATION 

2013 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 

Histogenics Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), adopted the 2013 Equity Incentive Plan on November 13,
2013 (the “Plan”). Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan. 

1.     Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the Plan shall be amended and restated in their entirety to read as follows: 

“3.1 Basic Limitation. Common Shares issued pursuant to the Plan may be authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares. The
aggregate number of Common Shares issued under the Plan shall not exceed the sum of (a) 818,327 Common Shares, (b) the number of Common Shares reserved under the Predecessor Plan that are not issued or subject to outstanding awards under
the Predecessor Plan on the Registration Date, (c) any Common Shares subject to outstanding options under the Predecessor Plan on the Registration Date that subsequently expire or lapse unexercised and Common Shares issued pursuant to awards
granted under the Predecessor Plans that are outstanding on the Registration Date and that are subsequently forfeited to or repurchased by the Company and (d) the additional Common Shares described in Articles 3.2 and 3.3; provided,
however, that no more than 505,431 Common Shares, in the aggregate, shall be added to the Plan pursuant to clauses (b) and (c). The number of Common Shares that are subject to Stock Awards outstanding at any time under the Plan may not exceed
the number of Common Shares that then remain available for issuance under the Plan. The numerical limitations in this Article 3.1 shall be subject to adjustment pursuant to Article 9. 

3.2 Annual Increase in Shares. As of the first business day of each fiscal year of the Company during the term of the Plan, commencing
on January 1, 2015 and ending on December 31, 2016, the aggregate number of Common Shares that may be issued under the Plan shall automatically increase by a number equal to the least of (a) 3.5% of the total number of Common Shares
outstanding on December 31 of the prior year, (b) subject to adjustment under Article 9, 181,414 Common Shares, or (c) a number of Common Shares determined by the Board. As of the first business day of each fiscal year of the Company
during the term of the Plan, commencing on January 1, 2017, the aggregate number of Common Shares that may be issued under the Plan shall automatically increase by a number equal to the lesser of (a) 4.0% of the total number of Common
Shares outstanding on December 31 of the prior year or (b) a number of Common Shares determined by the Board.” 
 Except as
expressly amended hereby, the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed. 
  

			
	Adopted by the Company’s Board of Directors:	  	April 19, 2016
	Adopted by the Company’s Stockholders:	  	June 22, 2016