alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### T. H. SANSOM v. N. M. JOHNSON.

(Filed 3 November, 1937.)

1. Homestead § 6—

A tenant in common is not entitled to allotment of homestead as against execution for his pro rata share of the costs of the partition proceedings in which his part of the land was allotted to him in severalty.

2. Judgment § 21—

An invalid allotment of homestead does not arrest the running of the statute of limitations, and the lien of judgments are lost after the lapse of ten years, notwithstanding the invalid allotment of homestead to the judgment debtor.

Appeal by defendant from judgment rendered by *Sinclair, J.,*at Chambers, September, 1937, from Sampson.

Judgment affirmed.

The facts were these. Plaintiff derived his title from Joe T. "Warren by deed dated 12 August, 1936. The land had been allotted to Joe T. Warren as his share under partition proceedings instituted in 1927 among the heirs of H. F. Warren. The costs of the partition proceeding were assessed against the several tracts, Joe T. Warren’s share thereof being one-seventh of $68.00. Following confirmation of the *384partition, execution was issued against Joe T. 'Warren and wife for their part of the costs and homestead allotted.

On April 14, 1920, there was docketed judgment against Joe T. Warren in the sum of $292.06 in favor of Geo. 0. Godwin. '

Upon the conveyance of the land by Joe T. Warren and wife to the plaintiff, execution was issued on the Godwin judgment and the land sold thereunder by the sheriff and purchased by one Clifford Warren. Of this attempted sale by the sheriff, plaintiff had no knowledge.

It appeared that there were other judgments against Joe T. Warren which were barred by the statute of limitations, as well as the Godwin judgment, unless the allotment of homestead arrested the running of the statute. Certain other encumbrances were agreed to by the defendant.

His Honor was of opinion, and so adjudged, that the attempted allotment of the homestead in the special proceeding was void and of no effect, that the Geo. 0. Godwin judgment was barred by the statute of limitations, and that plaintiff was seized in fee of the land (subject to the agreed encumbrances), and that he was entitled to recover of the defendant the purchase price upon execution and delivery of the deed.

*Dupree & Strickland for plaintiff, appellee.*

*J. R. Williams for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The ruling of the court below must be affirmed in accordance with the decisions of this Court in *Williams v. Whitaker,*110 N. C., 393; *Hinnant v. Wilder,*122 N. C., 149, and *Wilson v. Lumber Co.,*131 N. C., 163.

The amount assessed in the partition proceeding against the share of Joe T. Warren for one-seventh of the costs of the proceeding was not a personal judgment upon which an allotment of a homestead could be based, and the allotment being invalid, the lien of the docketed judgments was lost by lapse of ten years from the date of docketing the judgments. *Pasour v. Rhyne,*82 N. C., *149; Lyon v. Russ,*84 N. C., 588; *Lytle v. Lytle,*94 N. C., 683; *Hyman v. Jones,*205 N. C., 266.

Jiidgment affirmed.
| 1.     | JA      Development Co., Ltd. (British Virgin Islands) |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                   |

| 2.     | JingAo      Solar Co., Ltd. (Ningjin, China) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   |                                         |

| 3.     | Shanghai      JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China) |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                          |

| 4.     | JA      Solar USA Inc. (California, USA) |
|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   |                                     |

| 5.     | Shanghai      JA Solar PV Technology Co,. Ltd. (Shanghai, China) |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                             |

| 6.     | JA      Solar Technology YangZhou Co., Ltd. (Yangzhou, China) |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                          |

| 7.     | JA      Solar Hong Kong Limited (Hong Kong) |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   |                                        |

| 8.     | Jing      Hai Yang Semiconductor Material (Donghai) Co., Ltd. (Donghai,      China) |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                |

| 9. | Yangzhou      JA Solar R&D Corporation Limited (Yangzhou,  China) |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
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 Annual Report of Derycz Scientific, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard McKilligan,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
Company.





/s/ Richard McKilliganRichard
      McKilliganChief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
    Officer)September
      28, 2010
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS 

AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

 Debtors 

Chapter 11 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

(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 evidence and notice pursuant to Rule 3001(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure of the transfer, other than for security, of the claim referenced in this 

evidence and notice. 

Specialist Staffing Solutions Inc Cherokee Debt Acquisition, LLC 

Name of Transferor Name of Transferee

Name and Current Address of 

Transferor: 

Specialist Staffing Solutions Inc 

2 Houston Ctr 909 Fannin, Ste. P350 

Houston, TX 77010 

Attn: Gareth Jonathan 

Name and Address where notices and payments 

to transferee should be sent: 

Cherokee Debt Acquisition, LLC 

1325 Avenue of the Americas, 28th Floor 

New York, NY 10019 

Attn: Vladimir Jelisavcic 

Schedule/Claim No. Creditor Name Amount Debtor Case No. 

Claim No. 9119 Specialist Staffing 

Solutions Inc

$32,079.00 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 19-30089 

Schedule F 

(#1032716 & 3.3451) 

Specialist Staffing 

Solutions Inc

$32,079.00 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 19-30089 

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: _____________________ Date: September 27, 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# 4026 Filed: 09/27/19 Entered: 09/27/19 11:33:56 Page 1 of

3
CHEROKEE DEBT ACQUISITION, LLC

1325 Avenue of the Americas, 28th Floor

New York, NY 10019

Attn: Vladimir Jelisavcic

9119

27

CHEROKEE DEBT ACQUISITION, LLC

Vladimir Jelisavcic

Manager

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4026 Filed: 09/27/19 Entered: 09/27/19 11:33:56 Page 2 of

3
CHEROKEE DEBT ACQUISITION, LLC

1325 Avenue of the Americas, 28th Floor

New York, NY 10019

Attn: Vladimir Jelisavcic

27

CHEROKEE DEBT ACQUISITION, LLC

Vladimir Jelisavcic

Manager

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4026 Filed: 09/27/19 Entered: 09/27/19 11:33:56 Page 3 of

3
J-A09032-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

NICHOLAS L BOWEN

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1078 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 3, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP-61-CR-0000866-1997

BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and MURRAY, J.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY BOWES, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 5, 2018

I join Judge Murray’s well-reasoned memorandum. I write separately

to note that, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Batts, 163 A.3d 410 (Pa. 2017), “if the Commonwealth seeks to have the sentencing court impose a sentence

of life without parole on a juvenile offender, it must provide reasonable notice

to the defendant prior to the sentencing hearing.” Id. at 455.

Furthermore, while the trial judge opined that Batts would not have

changed its sentence, observations within Batts encourage the use of expert

testimony. See Majority Memorandum at 8 n.1. Additionally, Justice Wecht’s

concurring opinion observed:

Following today's decision, the Commonwealth likely will (and I

believe should) retain and present an expert in the vast majority

of LWOP resentencing hearings, if not in all of them. That being

the case, equity demands that trial courts exercise their discretion

to provide such juveniles with their own expert, in the event that

the juvenile cannot afford one on his or her own.
J-A09032-18

- 2 -

Id. at 460–61 (Wecht, J., concurring).

Accordingly, I would encourage the trial court to afford Appellant

adequate opportunity to respond to any notice filed upon remand.
#### In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Owen J. Malone, as Administrator, etc., of Catharine Grimes, Deceased. In the Matter of the Kinship of Frederick W. Law, as Executor of John Nolan, Deceased, Appellant, v. The People of the State of New York, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, without costs..'
#### Michael Downing, Judgment Creditor, *v.*Dominick De Vito, Judgment Debtor.

County Court, Schenectady County,

February 2, 1937.

*Abram IAfset,*for the judgment creditor.

*Edward Cohen,*for the judgment debtor.

Liddle, J.

Application has been made before the court on an order to show cause why the judgment debtor should not be adjudged guilty of contempt of court, the alleged contempt as charged being the defendant’s violation of an order of this court whereby the judgment debtor was directed to pay certain weekly installments out of moneys he received as wages while the judgment debtor was employed on what is commonly termed W. P. A. work.

It appears, among other things, that the judgment debtor was so employed; that his weekly earnings were approximately fourteen dollars; that he has a family consisting of his wife and several small children; that he used the moneys received as wages for the support *789and maintenance and care of his children and that he, over several months, received the sum of approximately $115 from this source.

This motion is or should be addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Pursuant to section 792 of the Civil Practice Act, certain moneys are not authorized to be seized. Earnings necessary for the use, wholly or partially, of the family may be exempt. It appears from the testimony before the referee that all or nearly all of these wages were used for the support and maintenance and care of his family. In the interest of humane social justice the court firmly feels that this judgment debtor rightly and justifiably used this pittance of a wage to so support and maintain his family and his little children, and that to adjudge the judgment debtor guilty of contempt of court would benefit no one and would be at least a social injustice.

Proceedings dismissed. Judgment debtor discharged of his alleged contempt.

Submit order.
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** 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. 98-20327 Conference Calendar

JAMES EDWARD FLOWERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JAMES A. COLLINS ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CV-2130

- - - - - - - - - - February 11, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. *
PER CURIAM: ** James Edwards Flowers, Texas prisoner # 588411, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Flowers argues that the main legal issue in his appeal concerns his allegations that he was denied due process in his disciplinary proceeding. He contends that theNo. 98-20327 -2- district court did not give him the opportunity to amend his complaint or to conduct discovery. Flowers’ claim of a denial of due process at the disciplinary proceeding is not yet cognizable in a § 1983 action. Edwards v. Balisok , 117 S. Ct. 1584, 1588-89 (1997). Thus, there was no need for discovery or an opportunity to amend the complaint to allege additional facts. The district court did not err in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. Black v. Warren , 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no issue of arguable merit. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. We caution Flowers that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Flowers is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this
court.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**Certification**

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

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

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title18, United States Code), each of the undersigned does hereby certify that:

 

The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                   | /s/ David R. Carlucci                            |
|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
| Date: May 1, 2009 | David R. Carlucci                                |
|                   | Chairman, Chief  Executive Officer and President |

 

 
|                    | /s/ Leslye G.  Katz                                |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Date: May 1,  2009 | Leslye G. Katz                                     |
|                    | Senior Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed aspart of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to IMS HealthIncorporated and will be retained by IMS Health Incorporated and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TOMAS LORENTZ
, Appellant,

v.

MATTHEW KRAC and CHRISTINA KRAC DIMMOCK
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 22

- 136

[ December 15, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Keathan B. Frink , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 21

- 004539 (12)

.

Tomas Lorentz , Davie, pro se.

Joshua Christensen of Lampariello Law Group , Royal Palm Beach, for appellee s

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY
, D AMOORGIAN and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

Robert A. Julian (SBN 88469)

Cecily A. Dumas (SBN 111449)

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

1160 Battery Street, Suite 100

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: 628.208.6434

Facsimile: 310.820.8869

Email: rjulian@bakerlaw.com

Email: cdumas@bakerlaw.com

Eric E. Sagerman (SBN 155496)

Lauren T. Attard (SBN 320898)

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509

Telephone: 310.442.8875

Facsimile: 310.820.8869

Email: esagerman@bakerlaw.com

Email: lattard@bakerlaw.com

Counsel to the Official Committee of Tort Claimants

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION

-andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Debtors

□ Affects PG& E Corporation

□ Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

■ Affects both Debtors

*All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM)

Bankruptcy Case No.

19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION 

OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF 

TORT CLAIMANTS PURSUANT TO 

B.L.R. 9013-1(c) FOR ENTRY OF AN 

ORDER AUTHORIZING OVERSIZE 

BRIEFING FOR OPPOSITION TO THE 

DEBTORS’ MOTION PURSUANT TO 11 

U.S.C. §§ 105(a) AND 502(c) FOR THE 

ESTABLISHMENT OF WILDFIRE 

CLAIMS ESTIMATION PROCEDURES 

[Dkt. No. 3091]

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3446 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 16:58:17 Page 1 of

3
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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

- 2 -

4842-0981-5711.1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 7, 2019, the Official Committee of Tort 

Claimants (hereafter, the “TCC”), in the chapter 11 cases of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company (collectively, the “Debtors” or “PG&E”), filed an Application (the 

“Application”) to the Court, pursuant to Rule 9013-1(c) of the Bankruptcy Local Rules for the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Bankruptcy Local 

Rules”), for entry of an order authorizing the TCC to file an oversize brief for its opposition to the 

motion [Dkt. No. 3091] (the “Estimation Motion”) filed by the Debtors pursuant to sections 105(a) 

and 502(c) of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) for the establishment of 

wildfire claims estimation procedures.

Dated: August 7, 2019

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

By: /s/ Lauren T. Attard

Lauren T. Attard

Counsel to the Official Committee of Tort 

Claimants

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3446 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 16:58:17 Page 2 of

3
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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

- 3 -

4842-0981-5711.1 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3446 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 16:58:17 Page 3 of

3
Promissory Note



 Exhibit 10.04 
 Promissory Note 
 On this date of July 21, 2009, in return for valuable consideration received, the undersigned
borrower promises to pay to Seatac Digital Resources, Inc., the “Lender”, the sum of One-Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), together with interest thereon at the rate of five percent (5%) percent per annum. 
 Payable On Demand: The entire unpaid principal and accrued interest thereon, if any, shall become immediately due and payable on demand by the holder of this
Note. 
 Default - In the event of default, the borrower agrees to pay all costs and expenses incurred by the Lender, including all reasonable
attorney fees (including both hourly and contingent attorney fees as permitted by law) for the collection of this Note upon default, and including reasonable collection charges (including, where consistent with industry practices, a collection
charge set as a percentage of the outstanding balance of this Note) should collection be referred to a collection agency. 
 Acceleration of Debt - In
the event that the borrower fails to make any payment due under the terms of this Note, or breach any condition relating to any security, security agreement, note, mortgage or lien granted as collateral security for this Note, seeks relief under the
Bankruptcy Code, or suffers an involuntary petition in bankruptcy or receivership not vacated within thirty (30) days, the entire balance of this Note and any interest accrued thereon shall be immediately due and payable to the holder of this
Note. 
 Modification - No modification or waiver of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be allowed unless by written agreement signed by both
parties. No waiver of any breach or default hereunder shall be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach or default of the same or similar nature. 
 Transfer of the Note - The borrowers hereby waive any notice of the transfer of this Note by the Lender or by any subsequent holder of this Note, agree to remain bound by the terms of this Note subsequent to any transfer, and agree
that the terms of this Note may be fully enforced by any subsequent holder of this Note. 
 Severability of Provisions - In the event that any portion
of this Note is deemed unenforceable, all other provisions of this Note shall remain in full force and effect. 
 Choice of Law - All terms and
conditions of this Note shall be interpreted under the laws of The State of California. 
 Dated: July 21, 2009 
  

	
	 /s/ Donald R. Mastropietro

	America’s Minority Health Network, Inc.
	Borrower