alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT**

Parties:

Tara Minerals Corp. (the “Company”)

Lyons Gate Capital (the “Consultant”).

Effective Date:

May 1, 2009.

The parties agree as follows:

1.

The parties entered into a Consulting Agreement dated July 15, 2008.  Pursuant to Section 2 of the Consulting Agreement the Company agreed to pay the Consultant cash, warrants and contingent consideration for services provided by the Consultant.

2.

The parties agree that the Consulting Agreement terminated on September 12, 2008.

3.

The parties agree that the cash compensation referred to in Section 2(a) of the Consulting Agreement has not been paid and the Warrant referred to in Section 2(b) of the Consulting Agreement has not been issued.  In lieu of the cash compensation and Warrant referred to above, the Consultant agrees to accept 200,000 shares of the Company’s restricted common stock.

4.

Except for the obligation to issue the shares referred to above, each party releases the other from any and all claims, known or unknown, which each party may have against the other.

DATED:  May 1, 2009

TARA MINERALS CORP.

By:  */s/ Francis R. Biscan Jr*.

        Francis R. Biscan, Jr., President

LIONS GATE CAPITAL

By:  */s/ Jim Braseth*

        Jim Braseth, Authorized Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 64069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30288]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[AK-96-962-1410-00-P; AA-70147 and AA-70153]


Alaska Native Claims Selection; Notice for Publication

    In accordance with Departmental regulation 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice 
is hereby given that a decision to issue conveyance under the 
provisions of Sec. 14(h)(8) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
of December 18, 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1601, 1613(h)(8), will be issued to 
Calista Corporation for approximately 34,046 acres. The lands involved 
are in the vicinities of Goodnews, Alaska, and Crooked Creek, Alaska.
    A notice of the decision will be published once a week, for four 
(4) consecutive weeks, in the Tundra Drums. Copies of the decision may 
be obtained by contacting the Alaska State Office of the Bureau of Land 
Management, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599 
((907) 271-5960).
    Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected 
by the decision, an agency of the Federal government or regional 
corporation, shall have until January 12, 1996 to file an appeal. 
However, parties receiving service by certified mail shall have 30 days 
from the date of receipt to file an appeal. Appeals must be filed in 
the Bureau of Land Management at the address identified above, where 
the requirements for filing an appeal may be obtained. Parties who do 
not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 
4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.
Terry R. Hassett,
Chief, Branch of Gulf Rim Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 95-30288 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
## Social Security beneficiaries by benefit level

Office of the Chief Actuary 

Beneficiary Data

beneficiary type

family type

single age

Total benefit payment data

      Monthly benefits are payable from the       Old-Age and Survivors Insurance      (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI)      Trust Funds. Growth in the number of beneficiaries over time      may be seen in a graph      for broad classes of beneficiaries.

      Because Social Security benefits are dependent on workers' earnings, the level      of benefits can vary widely.  (For information on the effect of earnings on benefits,      see requirements for insured status and       how we compute retirement  benefits.)      Using the form below, you can see how currently paid benefits vary.      Just select the type of beneficiary      and click on "Go."

Note that the benefit amount levels provided by the form below represent       the amounts due to beneficiaries in current payment status for the month(s)       included in the table.  These amounts exclude any adjustments to benefits for      retroactive payments and certain payment withholding that may be attributable      to eligibility in prior months. Therefore, these data do not represent total       benefits paid from the trust funds. Total benefit payment data including these      effects are available      here.

Benefits in current payment status at the end of December 2023      Select type of beneficiary:      Retired worker      Spouse of retired worker      Child of retired worker      Child of deceased worker      Parent of deceased worker      Aged widow(er)      Young widow(er)      Disabled widow(er)      Disabled worker      Spouse of disabled worker      Child of disabled worker      .Footer menu
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 240 (Thursday, December 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 64192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30563]



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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of Environmental Chemicals Group, Inc.; Order 
Suspending Trading

December 12, 1995.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that questions 
have been raised about the adequacy and accuracy of publicly-
disseminated information about Environmental Chemicals Group, Inc. 
concerning, among other things, its product lines, business prospects 
and relationships, and the assets recorded on its financial statements.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of Environmental Chemicals Group, Inc.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of 
Environmental Chemicals Group, Inc. is suspended for the period 
commencing 9:00 a.m. (EST) on December 12, 1995 and terminating on 
11:59 p.m. (EST) on December 26, 1995.

    By the Commission.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30563 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES -OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Belden & Blake Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the knowledge of the undersigned:  1.
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: March 31, 2005

/s/ James A. Winne IIIJames A. Winne III, Chief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board of Directors This certification accompanies the Form 10-K and shall not be treated as having been filed as part
of the Form 10-K.
No. 1195, Misc.

Petitioner *pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Marshall*and *Harold H. Greene*for respondent.

#### Berry *v.*Clemmer, Corrections Director.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Lizzie Smith v. Joseph A. Kurrus.

*Damages for Injury to Personal Property—Vehicle—Negligent Driver.*

1. In an action to recover damages to a vehicle, caused by the defendant’s negligence in remaining within sound of a band of music with a restless horse, this court declines to interfere with a verdict for the plaintiff.

2. In such a case the owner of the vehicle injured, and not the hirer thereof, is the proper person to bring suit.

[Opinion filed November 1, 1889.]

Appeal from the City Court of East St. Louis, St. Clair County; the Hon. B. H. Canby, Judge, presiding.

Mr. William P. Launtz, for appellant.

Messrs. Alex. Flannigen and Jesse M. Freels, for appellee.

Green, J.

This suit was brought in justice’s court, and there plaintiff recovered a judgment for $11; defendant appealed to the Circuit Court,- and by consent the venue was *277changed to the city court, where a trial was had and resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $11, and defendant took this appeal. The damages recovered were for injuries to plaintiff of $9.94, occasioned by a collision with defendant’s buggy, brought about by the negligence of the defendant. It appears by the record, one Mrs. Wilson hired a horse and surrey of plaintiff, and drove out to witness the ceremony of laying the corner-stone of a church, and there defendant’s buggy collided with and damaged the vehicle in which Mrs.' Wilson was quietly sitting watching the proceedings. There was a large crowd at the place,and a band of music. A short time before the accident the horse driven by defendant was frightened by the sound of the music, and became so unmanageable that it required the efforts of several men to then prevent him from running away and dashing through the crowd; yet, notwithstanding this, defendant remained on the ground in her buggy until the band again commenced playing, when the horse again became frightened at the sound of the music and ran the defendant’s buggy against plaintiff’s vehicle and damaged it as above stated. We are satisfied with the verdict and judgment.

Appellee, as owner of the damaged vehicle, was the proper party to bring the suit; he, and not his bailee, was the one •having the legal right of action to recover damages for the injury proven. He testified he owned the vehicle and was not contradicted; he also testified as to the amount of his damages. The jury properly found the negligence of defendant caused the injury, and properly awarded plaintiff damages therefor. The court did not err in refusing to give the first and fourth instructions asked on behalf of defendant, or in modifying defendant’s second and third instructions.

Ho error appearing requiring the reversal of the judgment, it is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60696

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT A. DAVIS, III, also known as Robert Arthur Davis, III, also known as

Robert A. Davis, also known as Robert Davis, also known as Robert Lee Davis,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:11-CR-7-1

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert A. Davis, III, pleaded guilty, pursuant to a conditional guilty plea,

to failure to register as a convicted sex offender in violation of the Sex Offender

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), reserving his

right to appeal the challenges to SORNA made in his motion to dismiss the

indictment. The district court sentenced Davis to 37 months in prison to be

followed by a life term of supervised release.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 19, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-60696 Document: 00511890964 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2012
No. 11-60696

On appeal, Davis argues that (1) he was never advised of the registration

requirements of SORNA, as required by 42 U.S.C. §16917, in violation of the Due

Process Clause; (2) the retroactive application of SORNA violates the Ex Post

Facto Clause; (3) SORNA violates the Tenth Amendment by requiring state

officials to administer federal law; (4) Congress violated the non-delegation

doctrine by giving the Attorney General the power to decide whether SORNA

applied retroactively; (5) SORNA’s registration requirement violates the

Commerce Clause by making failure to register a federal crime; (6) regulations

issued by the Attorney General were given without notice and comment in

violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); and (7) SORNA does not

apply to him because Mississippi has not yet adopted it. 

Davis’s complaints as to the notice and APA deficiencies, as well as his

reliance on the holding in Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 975 (2012), are

unavailing as he traveled in interstate commerce after the final regulations were

issued, which were published with proper notice and comment rulemaking. See

73 Fed. Reg. 38031-01. His remaining claims are foreclosed by our opinion in

United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 135

(2011). Davis asks us to reconsider the rulings in Johnson, and alternatively,

he presents these issues to preserve them for further appellate review. This

panel may not reconsider the court’s precedent absent an overriding Supreme

Court decision, a change in statutory law, or en banc consideration. See United

States v. Zuniga-Salinas, 952 F.2d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-60696 Document: 00511890964 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2012
#### In the Matter of Angel Marie L., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Dutchess County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Dorothy L., Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 610]

In a neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), entered August 22, 2003, made after a hearing, which found, inter alia, that she neglected her daughter Angel Marie L.

Ordered that the fact-finding order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We find no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination in this case. The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), *774which demonstrated that the child was at imminent risk of danger as a result of the mother’s mental illness *(see Matter of Octavia S.,*255 AD2d 316, 316-317 [1998]; *Matter of Jesse DD.,*223 AD2d 929, 931-932 [1996]). Where, as here, the Family Court is confronted primarily with issues of credibility, its factual findings must be accorded great weight on appeal *(see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. [Jasmin G.] v Ivan G.,*226 AD2d 529 [1996]).

The mother’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Krausman and Cozier, JJ., concur.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3286 

To include a Federal defender as a nonvoting member of the United States 

Sentencing Commission. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2021 

Mr. BOOKER (for himself and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To include a Federal defender as a nonvoting member of 

the United States Sentencing Commission. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sentencing Commis5 sion Improvements Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FEDERAL DEFENDER AS A NONVOTING MEMBER OF 

7 THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMIS8 SION. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 991(a) of title 28, United 

10 States Code, is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3286 IS

1 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘one non2 voting member.’’ and inserting ‘‘2 nonvoting mem3 bers.’’; and 

4 (2) in the fifth sentence, by striking ‘‘shall be 

5 an ex officio, nonvoting member’’ and inserting ‘‘and 

6 a Federal Public or Community Defender designated 

7 by the Defender Services Advisory Group, shall be 

8 ex officio, nonvoting members of the Commission.’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 235(b)(5) 

10 of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (18 U.S.C. 3551 

11 note) is amended, in the last sentence, by striking ‘‘nine 

12 members, including two ex officio, nonvoting members’’ 

13 and inserting ‘‘10 members, including 3 ex officio, non14 voting members.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### J. HERBERT BATE COMPANY v. J. N. BRYANT.

(Filed 28 October, 1925.)

Appeal by defendant from *Bunn, J.,*at April Term, 1925, of New-HANOVER.

Civil action tried-upon tbe following issues:

“1. Is tbe defendant indebted to tbe plaintiff, and if so, in what amount? Answer: $1,350.82 witb interest at 6% from 15 September, 1917.

*869“2. Is the plaintiff indebted to the defendant, and if so, in what amount? Answer: $140.86, with 6% interest from 15 March, 1917.”

Judgment on the verdict in favor of plaintiff for the difference between the answers to the first and second issues, from which the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*George Rountree for plaintiff.*

*Herbert McClammy and K. 0. Burgwin for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

The remainder judgment for the difference between plaintiff’s claim and defendant’s counterclaim, is sanctioned by what is said in *Sewing Machine Co. v. Burger,*181 N. C., 241.

The controversy on trial narrowed itself to issues of fact, which the jury alone could determine. The evidence was plenary and conflicting on both issues. There is no reversible error appearing on the record. The exceptions relating to the exclusion of evidence must be resolved in favor of the validity of the trial. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
## The 2022 OASDI Trustees Report

Office of the Chief Actuary

Actuarial Publications

- Table of Contents
- List of Tables
- List of Figures
- Index       Footer menu
#### Mary Heckel, Respondent, v. Putnam Coal and Ice Company, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.

Present —Bun, Thomas, Carr, Woodward and Rich, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Genaera Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-52882, 33-71984, 333-10889, 333-62073, 333-69824 and 333-121163) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-106678, 333-73798 and 333-121577) of Genaera Corporation of our report dated March 31, 2008,with respect to the balance sheets of Genaera Corporation as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for the years then ended, whichreport appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Genaera Corporation. 

Our report dated March 31, 2008 containsan explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations, has limited resources available to fund current research and development activities and will require substantial additional financing to continue tofund its research and development activities. These conditions raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

March 31, 2008
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Rory J. Cowan, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Lionbridge Technologies, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for theregistrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 whichthis report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 9, 2008
#### Sherburne Shaw v. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company.

Judgment of General Term modified by making it read that the reversal was on a question of law and fact.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

STUART ALEXANDER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2654 ) JAMES F. ALLEN and HERTEL ) PARK ASSOCIATES I, LLC, a New ) York limited liability company, ) ) Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed March 28, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Elizabeth V. Krier, Judge. Jared H. Beck, Elizabeth Lee Beck, and Beverly Virues of Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers, Miami, for Appellant. C. Richard Mancini of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., Bonita Springs, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.