alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Ex Rel. J. ABNER BARKER, Solicitor of the SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, v. BILL HUMPHREY and PRESTON HARPER.

(Filed 30 October, 1940.)

Nuisances § 11—

In tbis proceeding to abate a public nuisance, a third party, claiming title to certain of the personal property seized by the sheriff, made a motion in the cause seeking to restrain the sale. *Held:*Even conceding that the court has authority to find the facts upon the motion, the court has the power to submit the determinative issue to a jury and to restrain the sheriff from proceeding further under the execution pending tho trial of the issue.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Parker, J.,*at June Term, 1940, of LeNoir.

Affirmed.

*390Motion in the cause, which is a civil action to abate a public nuisance.

At the original trial the place o£ business of the defendant was adjudged to be a public nuisance and it was ordered abated and it was further ordered “that all fixtures, furniture, musical instruments or other movable property which have been used by the defendant Bill Humphrey in conducting the said nuisance shall be removed,” etc. Thereafter, under execution duly issued, the sheriff of Lenoir County seized all the movable property, including a stock of merchandise found on the premises, and proceeded to sell the same. Thereupon, the defendant Humphrey, contending that the sheriff had seized property not subject to the order of condemnation, instituted an action to restrain the sale. From an order dissolving the restraining order the plaintiff therein appealed. Upon hearing in this Court the judgment was reversed. Thereafter, the defendant Humphrey filed a motion in this cause in the court below for modification and clarification of the judgment entered.

Upon hearing the motion the court ordered that an issue be submitted to a jury as follows, to wit: “What movable property, if any, seized by the sheriff of Lenoir County and now in his possession, under execution in this case, was used in conducting said nuisance?” and, pending the submission of said issue, restrained the sheriff from proceeding further under the execution. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.

*Thos. J. White for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Louis I. Rubin, and Sutton & Greene for defendant, appellee.*

PeR Cueiam.

The proceedings in the court below on the motion filed is in substantial accord with the opinion of this Court rendered in *Humphrey v. Churchill, Sheriff,*217 N. C., 530. Even if it be conceded that the trial judge had the power to find the facts on the motion filed he had the authority to call a jury to his aid and to submit the issue of fact to the jury for determination.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.
#### John A. Deraismes. Executor, etc., Respondent, v. Lawrence Ennis, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit 10(xvii)

Chrysalis
Corporate Offices
575 Route 28
Raritan, NJ  08869 USA

Tel:  (908) 722-7900
Fax:  (908) 722-6677
E-mail: corporate @ chrysalisintl.com



December 23, 1997




Mr. George Montgomery
Managing Director
Hambrecht & Quist Inc.
One Bush Street
San Francisco, CA 94104

Dear George:

This is to confirm our verbal agreement to extend the expiration date of
Hambrecht & Quist's warrant (original warrant agreement dated June 21, 1994) to
purchase 110,000 shares of DNX Corporation common stock for a period of one year
from December 31, 1997 to December 31, 1998.

We very much look forward to continuing our work with you.

Sincerely,


/s/ Paul J. Schmitt
Paul J. Schmitt
Chairman, President &
Chief Executive Officer


PJS:kaw
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Paul Intlekofer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Nutrition 21, 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 the statements
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 the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures 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 which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented 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

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies 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 financial information; and

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

Date: May 15, 2006
Paul Intlekofer
President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       9,787,032
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,749
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    182,469
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,062,892
<PP&E>                                         288,628
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,353,084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          228,218
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,052
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,073,814
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,353,084
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                92,600
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               573,605
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (481,005)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (481,005)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (481,005)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 13.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Britannia Bulk Plc (the “Company”)on Form 20-F for the periodending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Arvid Tage, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of this Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, tomy knowledge:
| (1)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of  section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities and 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/ Arvid Tage          |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Arvid Tage              |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | April 23, 2007     |

 

 

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company or thecertifying officer for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Britannia Bulk Plc and will be retainedby it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 246 (Friday, December 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 66547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31130]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. MT96-2-000]


Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

December 18, 1995.
    Take notice that on December 12, 1995, Northwest Pipeline 
Corporation (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to 
become effective January 12, 1996:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 239
Third Revised Sheet No. 297

    Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to update its 
tariff in compliance with the directives of the Commission in 18 CFR 
250.16(b)(1), which requires an interstate natural gas pipeline to 
report any changes which occur to the list of operating personnel and 
facilities shared by the interstate natural gas pipeline and its 
marketing or brokering affiliates.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest this filing should file 
a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance 
with Secs. 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations. Pursuant to Sec. 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations, 
all such motions or protests must be filed not later than 12 days after 
the date of the filing noted above. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31130 Filed 12-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Order entered February 14, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00708-CR

MICKEY JOHN MCCORMICK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12CL-0273-2

ORDER

Before the Court is the State of Texas’s February 12, 2014 motion to extend the time to 

file its brief and permit the filing of the late brief. The Court GRANTS the State’s motion. The 

State’s brief is deemed filed as of the date of this order. 

/s/ ADA BROWN 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 245 (Thursday, December 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 66337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30915]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary


Notice That the Department Will No Longer Issue Formal SFRL 
Update Orders, in Light of the Recently Issued Final Rule Exempting 
Carriers From Their Statutory Duty To File International Air Cargo 
Tariffs. We Are Publishing This Notice in Its Entirety as an Appendix 
to This Document

    DATED: Issued in Washington, DC December 13, 1995.
Patrick V. Murphy,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.

Attachment

United States of America, Department of Transportation, Office of the 
Secretary, Washington, DC
NOTICE: Issuing of Formal SFRL Update Orders Discontinued.

    The Department issued a final rule, November 30, 1995, exempting 
all U.S. and foreign air carriers from their statutory duty to file 
international air cargo tariffs, subject to the reimposition of the 
duty in specific cases when consistent with the public interest (60 
FR 61472).
    In light of this development, the Department will no longer be 
issuing periodic formal orders updating the Standard Foreign Rate 
Level (SFRL) for each geographic area (Atlantic, Latin America and 
Pacific). However, as stated in our October 24, 1994, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, the Department will continue to recalculate the 
SFRL cost indices. This will continue to establish benchmark levels 
that would be considered reasonable, and that could be used to 
resolve any complaints against rates in any rate categories covered 
by the SFRL.
    These SFRL cost indices will be available from the Department 
upon request. Persons who desire this information may telephone the 
Department at 202-366-2435 or write to the Department at the 
following address:
    U.S. Department of Transportation; Office of the Secretary; 
Office of International Aviation, X-43; 400 7th Street S.W.; 
Washington DC 20590.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and shall 
be served on all certificated air carriers and all foreign air 
carriers.

    Dated: December 13, 1995.
Patrick V. Murphy for Mark L. Gerchick,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 95-30915 Filed 12-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
EXHIBIT 11.1



COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE



GEORGIA BANK FINANCIAL CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARY



|                                                                           |  |      |           |                         |   |           |  |   |          
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | --------- | ----------------------- | - | --------- |  | - | ---------
|                                                                           |  |      |           | Year ended December 31, |   |          
|                                                                           |  | 2003 |           | 2002                    |   | 2001     
|Net income                                                                 |  | $    | 7,933,101 |                         | $ | 6,010,125 |  | $ | 4,561,004
|                                                                           |  |      |          
|Basic and diluted net income per share:(1)                                 |  |      |           |                         |   |           |  |   |          
|                                                                           |  |      |          
|Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                       |  |      | 5,247,204 |                         |   | 5,247,204 |  |   | 5,247,204
|                                                                           |  |      |          
|Basic net income per share                                                 |  | $    | 1.51      |                         | $ | 1.15      |  | $ | 0.87     
|                                                                           |  |      |          
|Weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares outstanding |  |      | 5,357,637 |                         |   | 5,328,023 |  |   | 5,256,128
|                                                                           |  |      |          
|Diluted net income per share                                               |  | $    | 1.48      |                         | $ | 1.13      |  | $ | 0.87     

---

|(1) | Adjusted on a comparative basis for the 10% stock dividend payable August 29, 2003 and the 2:1 stock split payable November 21, 2003.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



90
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Jason Ramjattansingh v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 01089

- CR

Trial court case number: 2019635

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 8 of Harris County

Appellant has filed a motion to supplement the record with two subpoenas filed by the

State to secure the attendance of Joshua Wilson, a tow truck driver.

Rule 34.5 allows a party to request supplementation of the clerk’s record. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 34.5(c)(1). Because appellant may request supplementation of the clerk’s record from

the District Clerk , we dismiss appellant’s motion as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting indiv idually

Date: July 28, 2016
* 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 99-20125 Summary Calendar

_______________________
In The Matter Of: RICHARD HENRY PARKER, JR.,

Debtor.

____________________
RICHARD HENRY PARKER, JR.,

Appellant,

versus

DONALD M. LANCON; KATHLEEN ROBINSON; ROY BERT ROBINSON,

Appellees.

______________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-97-CV-569

______________________________________________________________ March 21, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

As Judge Hittner’s opinion notes, Parker, the attorneyappellant here, has been a party to many lawsuits and proceedings

in state courts, bankruptcy court and federal district court. In

the appeal before us, he is attempting to overcome the bankruptcy

court’s ruling that a case he attempted to pursue in state court in

Galveston was barre d by the doctrines of res judicata and

collateral estoppel. Parker raises only three issues on appeal:2

the propriety of the removal; the bankru ptcy court’s refusal to

abstain; and the bankruptcy court’s summary dismissal of his

claims. These issues are easily resolved.

Although the notice of removal was directed to the wrong

division of the Southern District of Texas, defendants removed the

case from state court to the bankruptcy court intending that it

should be handled by Judge Greendyke, who is presiding over

Parker’s personal bankruptcy. Any error in failing to file the

notice of appeal in the Galveston rather than the Houston division,

in both of which Judg e Greendyke is an active judge, is merely

technical and bears on venue rat her than the bankruptcy court’s

jurisdiction. Similarly, any defect in notice of the removal filed

with the Galveston state court is non-jurisdictional and factually

unsubstantiated.

T he bankruptcy court did not abuse his discretion in

failing to abstain from hearing this case, which bears on an asset

allegedly belonging to the debtor’s estate and replicates a number

of previous claims asserted by Parker a nd rejected in the

bankruptcy court.

Finally, the bankruptcy court warned Parker as early as

its September, 1996 hearing, that the claims he asserted in the

Galveston case appeared to be barred by res judicata and collateral

estoppel. The court repeated this belief in the November

scheduling hearing. Parker was on ample notice that the court was

considering these issues, and he had plenty of time to brief them

before the court’s final order denying reconsideration was entered.3

No reversible error is shown in any of the bankruptcy court’s

rulings or in the district court’s opinion affirming them.

AFFIRMED

.
### Proposed Provision: B6.6. Starting in 2030, provide a uniform PIA increase in the 24th year of benefit eligibility. Phase in the PIA increase at 0.5 percent per year from the 15th through the 24th years of eligibility. The full PIA increase is equal to 5 percent of the average retired worker PIA in December of the 14th year of benefit eligibility. A similar additional PIA increase applies in the 43rd year of benefit eligibility (age 104), phased in from the 34th through the 43rd years of eligibility. For those past the 15th year of eligibility in 2029 (over age 76 for retirees), phase in the PIA enhancement over 10 years starting in 2030. Auxiliary beneficiaries receive benefit enhancement based on the PIA of the governing worker.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Immersion Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Carl Schlachte, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:


(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and


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





/s/   CARL SCHLACHTECarl SchlachteInterim Chief Executive Officer


July 30, 2018


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.