alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Helena Metzger, Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company, Appellant. Hannah E. Boardman and another, Respondents, v. The Metroplitan Elevated Railway Company, Appellant. Edmund J. Curry, Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company, Appellant. Edmund J. Curry, Respondent, v. The New York Elevated Railroad Company, Appellant.

— Motions for reargument denied with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements in one case.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40231

Summary Calendar

 

CARLOS ARNULFO MARQUEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al,

Defendants,

PRIMO JOEL GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

UDC No. L-95-CV-92

- - - - - - - - - -

January 28, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Arnulfo Marquez, no. 54677-079, appeals the district

court’s dismissal with prejudice of his action brought pursuant

to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Marquez complained that the

Government deprived him of his property without due process by

destroying his possessions in Government custody without giving

him prior notice. An intentional deprivation of property does
No. 97-40231

-2-

not offend due process if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is

available. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Texas

recognizes such a remedy. Myers v. Adams, 728 S.W.2d 771, 772

(Tex. 1987). Marquez should seek relief in the Texas state

courts and not under Bivens. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533; Myers,

728 S.W.2d at 772.

Although the district court dismissed Marquez’s action as

barred by the relevant statute of limitations, this court can and

does affirm on the above alternative basis. See Bickford v.

International Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.

1981).

AFFIRMED.
#### S. D. ELLISON v. J. W. HUNSINGER; PLANTERS & MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE, INC.; J. E. NOGGLE, Manager of PLANTERS & MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE, INC.; A. B. FAIRLEY, State Warehouse Superintendent; and BRANDON P. HODGES, Treasurer of the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.

(Filed 20 October, 1954.)

Appeal by defendants Planters & Merchants Warehouse, Inc., and J. E. Noggle from *Pless, J.,*March Term 1954, Cleveland.

Affirmed.

Civil action to recover the value of forty-three bales of lint cotton stored with defendant warehouse corporation.

This cause was here on a former appeal, *Ellison v. Hunsinger,*237 N.O. 619, 75 S.E. 2d 884. The essential facts are there fully stated. On the rehearing in the court below the parties reaffirmed the stipulations theretofore entered of record and agreed that the fair market value of the cotton at the time it was put in storage was $8,878.85. Thereupon the court entered judgment against the warehouse corporation and its local manager, and they excepted and appealed.

*D. Z. Newton and George F. Coleman for plaintiff- appellee.*

*Joseph C. Whisnant and Horace Kennedy for defendant appellants.*

Per Curiam.

The law as stated in the opinion of *Parher, J.,*speaking for the Court, on the former appeal, *Ellison v. Hunsinger,*237 N.C. 619, 75 S.E. 2d 884, is the law of this case. What is there said needs no amplification or clarification.

On this record it is crystal clear that the appellants received for storage forty-three bales of cotton belonging to the plaintiff. When they issued the warehouse certificates without complying with the requirements of *796the statute or making any investigation as to the ownership of the cotton, they rendered its legal return to the plaintiff beyond the pale of possibility. They have failed to offer any legal justification for their failure to account to him for that which is his. The court below concluded that under these circumstances the appellants are indebted to plaintiff, as a matter of law, in a sum equal to the fair market value of the cotton at the time they received it and entered judgment accordingly. We concur. Therefore, the judgment entered is

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>     
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Financial 
Statements for the three (3) months ended March 31, 1999, and is qualified in 
its entirety by reference to such form 10-QSB for quarterly period ended 
March 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                     <C>    

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                             38,108
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                         5,357
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  209,098
<PP&E>                                          1,311,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (14,871)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,899,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             181,918
<BONDS>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                              840
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      1,008,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,899,028
<SALES>                                            38,138
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   40,361
<CGS>                                              45,515
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     138,475
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 14,207
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (112,321)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (112,321)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (112,321)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.01)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.2

                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
                    ----------------------------------------
           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
           ----------------------------------------------------------
                to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                ------------------------------------------------


The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of SAVVIS Communications
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date
hereof:

(a)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
         September 30, 2002, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
         Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and

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


                                                     /s/ David J. Frear
                                                     David J. Frear
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     November 11, 2002
STATE OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

FREDRICK SMITH

71 • 79 ;; i---• 

NO. 2023 KW 0771

AUGUST 11, 2023

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton

Rouge, No. DC - 22- 03661. 

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. 

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court' s ruling denying the state' s

motion to continue is vacated. Pursuant to La. Code Crim. P. 

art. 711, unless the motion to continue is consented to by all

parties, the motion shall be tried summarily and contradictorily

with the adverse party. The trial court cannot deny the motion

ex parte without giving the mover an opportunity to have a

hearing and present evidence that can be reviewed by this court. 

Accordingly, the motion is remanded to the trial court for a

contradictory hearing on the merits of the motion. 

PMC

CHH

SMM
#### W. E. McNEILL v. R. H. SUTHERLAND.

(Filed 3 January, 1940.)

Appeal by defendant from *Alley, J.,*at July Term, 1939, of Ashe.

Affirmed.

Civil action to recover damages for breach of contract.

Plaintiff alleges and offered evidence tending to show that on 3 July, 1937, defendant contracted and agreed to sell to him 180 head of beef *807cattle at 8c per pound, for delivery from tbe first to tbe fifteenth of October, 1937; that tbe defendant breached tbe contract, notifying tbe plaintiff by letter 7 September, 1937, that be bad sold tbe cattle to another; and that be bad been damaged thereby. Tbe defendant contended and offered evidence tending to show that be bad negotiated with tbe plaintiff for tbe sale of said cattle to tbe State, through plaintiff as agent, but that as a condition precedent tbe contract was to be in writing and signed by an official of tbe State; that no such contract was executed and none exists.

Appropriate issues were submitted to and answered by tbe jury in favor of tbe plaintiff. From judgment thereon tbe defendant appealed.

*C. W. Higgins, Ira T. Johnston, and W. B. Austin for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Bowie & Bowie for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe controverted issues of fact have been submitted to and determined by a jury adversely to tbe defendant. After a careful examination of tbe several assignments of error we are of tbe opinion that they fail to disclose substantial or harmful error in tbe trial.

Tbe judgment below is

Affirmed.
MAG MAGNA CORP


 


Loan Agreement


 


 


This Loan Agreement (this “Agreement”),
is executed as of this day of December 2, 2021 (the “Effective
Date”) by and between


Mag Magna Corp., hereinafter
referred to as the “Borrower” which expression unless repugnant to the context shall mean and includes its legal representatives,
assignee, nominee(s) and administrator;


and


Oleg Bilinski, hereinafter referred to as the “Lender”
which expression unless repugnant to the context shall mean and includes its legal representatives, assignee, nominee(s) and administrator;


 


WHEREAS at the request of the Borrower, the
Lender has agreed to grant a Loan not exceeding a sum of $60,000.00 to the Borrower for a period of 6 years on terms and conditions hereinafter
contained.


1. 
Loan Amount: The Lender agrees to loan the Borrower the principal sum of $60,000.00 (the “Loan”),
together with interest on the outstanding principal amount of the Loan (the "Principal Balance"), and in accordance with the
terms set forth below.


2. 
Interest: The Principal Balance shall bear interest at the rate of 0.00% per annum, accruing daily.


3. 
Repayment of Loan: The Loan, together with accrued and unpaid interest and all other charges, costs
and expenses, is due and payable on or before December 2, 2028.





 


4. 
 Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties and supersedes
and cancels all prior agreements of the parties, whether oral or written, with respect to such subject matter.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
Agreement as of the date first stated above.


SIGNATURES


 


	Borrower’s Signature                                                                                                    	
    Lender’s Signature

     

	Borrower’s Full Name	Lender’s Full Name
	
     

    

     
	
     

    

	Mag Magna Corp.                                                                                                    	Oleg Bilinski





 


 


 





Oleg Bilinski


office@magmagna.com
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 64068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30337]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Funding Notice for Grant Programs Funded Under Title VIII of the 
Public Health Service Act for Fiscal Year 1996; Notice of Extension of 
Application Due Date

    This notice extends the application due date for fiscal year (FY) 
1996 grant program for Nursing Education Opportunities for Individuals 
from Disadvantaged Backgrounds (section 827). The application due date 
is extended to January 12, 1996. All applications must be received in 
the Parklawn Building by close of business on January 12, 1996. This 
change is necessary because of difficulties experienced with 
electronically accessing the program materials and unexpected delays in 
mailing. All other aspects of the October 20, 1995 Federal Register 
Notice (60 FR 54243) remain the same.

    Dated: December 7, 1995.
Ciro V. Sumaya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-30337 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-M
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).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

Refresh Results
Search

                          -  -   
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
  -   
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
 

↓ Load more

### Group Activity

### Members

#### **QUICK LINKS**

#### Accessibility  |  Section 508    Web PolicySite Map  |  Defense.gov  |  Intel.govQuestions  |  Privacy and SecurityContact Us  |  Inspector General  |  FOIAOPM.gov  |  Plain Writing Act | MISONo Fear Act  |  Links DisclaimerUSA.gov  |  DoD Open Government

                  - Facebook
                  - X
                  - YouTube
                  - LinkedIn
                  - Civilian Careers

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil

### **QUICK LINKS**

Web Policy        Accessibility  |  Section 508Site Map            Defense.gov  |  Intel.govQuestions          Privacy and SecurityContact Us        Inspector GeneralOPM.gov           Plain Writing ActNo Fear Act       Links DisclaimerUSA.gov            DoD Open Government

### **CONNECT**
#### HORACE F. CRUMP v. ECKERD’S, INC.

(Filed 4 February, 1955.)

Pleadings § 22: Process § 14—

The discretionary denial by the trial court of a motion to amend tbe pleadings and process is not reviewable in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Patton, Special J.,*March Extra Civil Term 1954 Of MECKLENBURG.

Motion by the plaintiff that the court “exercise its discretion by permitting and ordering the process and pleadings in this cause to be amended by striking out the words, ‘Eckerd’s, Incorporated,’ wherever they may appear, and inserting in lieu thereof the words ‘Eckerd Drugs, Incorporated,’ a Delaware corporation; and that the said Eekerd Drugs, *490Incorporated, be allowed thirty days within which to answer or otherwise plead from date of service of said process.”

The trial court, after hearing the evidence, made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered the following order: “Upon the foregoing FINDINGS of Fact and Concdttsions of Law, and in the discretion of the Court, it is OedeRed that plaintiff’s said motion be, and the same is hereby denied.”

The plaintiff appealed assigning error.

*Hugh M. McAulay and Welling & Welling for Plaintiff, Appellant.*

*Kennedy, Kennedy & Hiclcman for Defendant, Appellee.*

Parker, J.

Eckerd’s, Inc., is a Forth Carolina corporation. Eckérd Drugs, Inc., is a Delaware corporation.

G-.S. 1-163 is captioned “Amendments in Discretion of Court.” The material part of this statute reads: “The judge or court may, before and after judgment, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, amend any pleading, process or proceeding, ... by correcting a mistake in the name of a party . . .”

It is not necessary for us to decide whether the plaintiff by his motion is seeking to correct a mistake in the name of the defendant, or is seeking to substitute a different corporation for the present defendant without service of process. The trial court *in its discretion*denied plaintiff’s motion. No manifest abuse of discretion is made *to appear.*The court’s ruling is not subject to review. *Gordon v. Gas Co.,*178 N.C. 435, 100 S.E. 878; *Hogsed v. Pearlman,*213 N.C. 240, 195 S.E. 789; *Byers v. Byers,*223 N.C. 85, 25 S.E. 2d 466; *Pharr v. Pharr,*223 N.C. 115, 25 S.E. 2d 471.

The judgment of the lower court is

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.5






Exhibit 10.5




SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ COMPENSATION

Effective June 19, 2009




Annual Retainers





	 	•	 	Non-Employee Chairman: $ 145,000







	 	•	 	Non-Employee Directors other than the Chairman: $45,000







	 	•	 	Audit Committee Members: $10,000







	 	•	 	Nominating & Governance Committee Members: $5,000







	 	•	 	Compensation Committee Members: $5,000







	 	•	 	Risk and Finance Oversight Committee Members: $5,000







	 	•	 	Special Committee Chairman approximately: $25,000






Fees for Meeting Attendance





	 	•	 	Board Meetings: $2,000 per meeting







	 	•	 	Committee Meetings: $2,000 per meeting






Except for the Non-Employee Chairman’s annual retainer, directors may choose to be paid their
annual retainers and meeting fees in one or both of the following forms:




	 	•	 	Cash







	 	•	 	Common Stock






Each director completes a written election before the beginning of each calendar year specifying
the types and percentages of compensation to be paid in each form of payment. If a director
chooses to be paid in common stock, the director receives a 25 percent premium in restricted stock
with voting and dividend rights which vests and the restrictions are removed on the vesting date of
the immediately preceding annual grant.



The Non-Employee Chairman may choose to be paid his annual retainer in cash or common stock by
completing a written election but will not be entitled to a 25 percent premium if he chooses common
stock.



Equity Compensation 





	 	•	 	Annual grant of 6,000 shares of restricted stock with voting and dividend rights. The
 shares vest and the restrictions are removed on the earlier of the end of the director’s
current term or the one-year anniversary of the grant date.







	 	•	 	Initial grant of 5,000 shares of restricted stock which vests and the restrictions are
removed on the vesting date of the immediately preceding annual grant.
Exhibit32.2

Certification Pursuant To Section 906 Of TheSarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002(Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. Section1350(A) And (B))

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(a)and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as anofficer of Metaldyne Corporation (the"Company") that the Quarterly Report of theCompany on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 28, 2003 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained insuch report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company at the end of andfor the periods covered by such Report.

|                        |  |                                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |  |
|------------------------|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| Date:November 10, 2003 |  | /s/ Jeffrey M.Stafeil Jeffrey M. Stafeil Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer(Chief Accounting Officer and AuthorizedSignatory) |
|                        |

----
ex10_4.htm


 

EXHIBIT 10.4

 




Employment Contract of Liu Ruisheng





Employer: Wide Broad Group Limited    Employee: Liu Ruisheng





Position: Chief Executive Officer and Chairman





Job Duty: implement and take the responsibility as a “CEO & Chairman” of the company, act as

the best interest of the group company.





Effective Period: Under the rule of No.7 termination clause, the employment contract period will be 2 years and the effective date will be July 1st, 2009.





Remuneration: HKD$1,300,000/year, it will be installed within 13 months and paid in the last day of each month. The 13th’s salary will be paid with last month.
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------

                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWALT, INC.
                         ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA2
               MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-OA2


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2008
----------------------------------
Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance