alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of App eals
F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 14 93

__ __ __ __ __ _ Cec il James Ro th , *
* App el la nt , *
* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e * So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

. Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *
* [UNPUBLISHED] App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Ju ly 30, 2 01 2 Fi le d: Aug us t 2 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re MUR PHY, ARNOLD, an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.

Cec il Ro th ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s di s miss al of hi s am en de d co m pl ai nt 1 ag ai ns t th e Uni te d St at es of Am eri ca. He al so req ue st s or al arg um en t. Upo n care fu l de no vo rev ie w, se e Has ti ng s v. W il so n , 5 1 6 F

. 3 d 10 55 , 10 58 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at it la ck ed su bjec t m at t e r juri sd ic ti on , se e FDIC v. M e y er, 51 0 U.S. 47 1, 47 5 (1 99 4) (s ov erei gn im m un it y is juri sd ic ti on al in n a t u r e ; ab se nt waiv er, so vere ign im m un it y sh ie ld s Fed eral Gov ern m en t an d it s ag en ci es fro m
su it ); V S Ltd

. P’sh ip v. Dep ’t of Hou s. & Urb an Dev ., 23 5 F.3 d 11 09 , 11 12 (8 th Ci r.

The Hon or ab le Ch arl es R. W ol le , Uni te d St at es D ist ri ct Judg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1 Dis tri ct of I owa

.20 00 ) (to su e Uni te d St at es , pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow bo th waiv er of so ve rei gn im m un it y
an d gr an t of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ), bu t we cl ari fy th at th e jud gm en t is wit ho ut pr ejud ic e, se e Cn ty. of Mi ll e La c s v
. Ben jam in , 36 1 F.3 d 46 0, 46 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (d is tri ct co ur t is ge ne ral ly ba rred fro m di sm is si ng cas e wit h pr ejud ic e if it co nc lu de s
su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on is ab se nt ); Mu rray v. Uni te d St at es , 68 6 F.2 d 13 20 , 13 27 & n.1 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 82 ) (aff irming di sm is sa l wit ho ut pr ejud i c e w h e r e di sm is sa l was gr an te d o n g ro un ds of s ov erei gn im m un it y ).

W e affi rm th e jud gm en t as cl ari fie d, se e 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B, an d we de ny Ro th ’s req ue st for ora l ar gu m en t, s ee Fe d. R. Ap p. P. 3 4( a)(2 )(C) ; 8 th Cir . R. 34 A.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1996 10K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       5,043,158
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,726,442
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,825,096
<PP&E>                                      36,367,381
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,734,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,497,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,238,056
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,950
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,362,593
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,497,563
<SALES>                                     19,021,954
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,212,353
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,582,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,041,247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,588,861
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,178,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,410,861
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,410,861
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .59
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 7583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02893]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

 Geological Survey

[GX16EE000101100]


National Geospatial Advisory Committee; Charter Renewal

AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Secretary of the Interior has 
renewed the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (Committee), in 
accordance with Section 14(b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Mahoney, U.S. Geological Survey, 
phone: 206-220-4621, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f3999e929b9c9d968ab386809480dd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d57505c55525358447d484e5a4e135a524b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee provides advice and 
recommendations to the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), 
through the FGDC Chair (the Secretary of the Interior or designee), 
related to management of Federal geospatial programs, the development 
of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and the implementation of 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-16 and Executive Order 
12906. The Committee will review and comment upon geospatial policy and 
management issues and will provide a forum to convey views 
representative of non-Federal partners in the geospatial community. The 
Committee will conduct its operations in accordance with the provisions 
of the FACA.

Certification

    I hereby certify that the National Geospatial Advisory Committee is 
in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties 
imposed on the Department of the Interior by Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Circular A-16 (Revised), ``Coordination of Geographic 
Information and Related Spatial Data Activities.'' The Committee will 
assist the Department of the Interior by providing advice and 
recommendations related to the management of Federal geospatial 
programs and the development of the National Spatial Data 
Infrastructure.

    Dated: January 19, 2016.
Sally Jewell,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 2016-02893 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4311-AM-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### EASTERN COTTON OIL COMPANY v. S. E. POWELL, JAMES E. WILSON, Interpleader; MAGGIE LEE, Interpleader, and MARY MARTIN, Interpleader.

(Filed 23 September, 1931.)

Agriculture D b — Crop lien under C. S., 2480, is superior to prior registered chattel mortgage on crops for antecedent debt.

A statutory agricultural lien for supplies and advancements during tbe current crop year, conforming to tbe requirements of the statute both as to context and registration, is superior to a prior registered chattel mortgage given to secure an antecedent debt, tbe chattel mortgage not being in the required form to constitute a crop lien for supplies as contemplated by statute. C. S., 2480.

Appeal by James E. Wilson, interpleader, from *Sinclair, J.,*at April Term, 1931, of Johnston.

Affirmed.

*Leon G. Stevens and E. J. Wellons for plaintiff.*

*James Raynor and Winfield H. Lyon for James E. Wilson, inter-pleader.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe question involved: Is a chattel mortgage upon crops to secure an antecedent debt that is not in tbe required form to constitute a crop lien for supplies as contemplated by tbe statute, O. S., 2480, sufficient to enable it to take precedence over a subsequently recorded agricultural lien for supplies in tbe form required by tbe statute ? We think not.

C. S., 2480: “If any person makes any advance either in money or supplies to any person who is engaged in or about to engage in the *352cultivation of the soil, the person making the advances is entitled to a lien on the crops made within one year from the date of the agreement in writing herein required upon the land in the cultivation of which the advance has been expended, in preference to all other liens, except the laborer’s and landlord’s liens, to the extent of such advances. Before any advance is made an agreement in writing for the advance shall be entered into, specifying the amount to he advanced or fixing a limit beyond which the advance, if made from time to time during the year, shall not go; and this agreement shall be registered in the office of the register of the county where the person advanced resides; provided, that the lien shall continue to be good and effective as to any crop or crops which may he harvested after the end of the said year.”

Although under this section the lien of a landlord for rent and advances is superior to that of a third party making advances to the tenant, yet such priority exists only for rent accruing or advances made during the year in which the crops are grown, and not for a balance due for an antecedent year. *Ballard & Co. v. Johnson,*114 N. C., 141.

An agricultural lien duly executed and registered takes precedence over a mortgage of prior date and registration upon the “crops” therein subjected to the extent of the advances made. *Wooten v. Hill,*98 N. C., 48; *Killebrew v. Hines,*104 N. C., 194. *Williams v. Davis,*183 N. C., 90; *Collins v. Bass,*198 N. C., 99; *White v. Riddle,*198 N. C., 511; see Public Laws of 1931, ch. 173. For the reasons given, the judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.
#### R. A. WELLONS, Trustee, v. A. G. JOHNSTON et al.

(Filed 26 September, 1928.)

Pleadings — Counterclaim—When Counterclaim May Be Set Up. , , ,

Where a corporation gives its note to its president .to secure him against any loss he might sustain by reason of his endorsement of the corporation’s *notes,*and the president transfers the note to a third person, who brings suit, the corporation may not set up as a counterclaim in the action indebtedness due the corporation by the president. C. S., 521.

Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of *Daniels, J.,*dated 17 August, 1928.

Affirmed.

This action was begun in the- Superior Court of Johnston County to recover upon a note for the sum of $10,000.00, executed by defendants, and now held by plaintiff as assignee of E. F. Boyette, payee therein. It was referred to Hon. D. H. Bland for trial.

The note contains a clause reciting that it is “given to protect E. F. Boyette against any loss that he may sustain by reason of his personal endorsement on notes for the Farmers Warehouse, Inc., and also for any *95loss that he may sustain by reason of his personal securities which he has deposited to secure the obligations of the Farmers Warehouse, Inc. This note nor no portion of the same is to be paid except as the said E. E. Boyette proves that he has sustained a loss as outlined above.” E. E. Boyette was the president, and the defendants were directors of said Farmers Warehouse, Inc., which has ceased to do business.

Defendants in their answer to the' complaint plead certain alleged indebtedness of said E. F. Boyette to the Farmers Warehouse, Inc., as counterclaims in this action.

From judgment affirming an order of the referee overruling plaintiff’s demurrer to said counterclaims, plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

*WeTlons & Wellons for plaintiff.*

*Abell & Shepard for defendants.*

Per CuriaM.

The indebtedness of E. F. Boyette to Farmers Warehouse, Inc., alleged in the answer, and relied upon by defendants as counterclaims against plaintiff, do not constitute counterclaims within the meaning of the statute. C. S., 521. Whether or not such indebtedness may be established and considered in determining the amount, if any, for which defendants are liable to plaintiff, cannot now be decided. The decision must be reserved until the facts with respect to such indebtedness have been found by the referee and reported, with his conclusions of law, to. the court. This is in effect the holding of the referee, as we construe his order. There is no error in the order as thus construed, and the judgment affirming same must be

Affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 11, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00402

- CV

CITY OF LAREDO,

Appellant

v.

Brenda SANCHEZ , Individually and as next friend of R.S., minor,

Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Tria l Court No. 2019CVA001672D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Re tired Chief Justice

, Sandee Bryan Marion ( not participating)

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Li za A. Rodriguez, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant ’ s Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is

DE NIED.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justi ce

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 11th day of January, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.4 


   


 Anne Pratt 


   


 At this time, Atlis employees are compensated on a split salary/equity basis. Your cash compensation will be
70% of your $200,000.00 annual salary, which equates to $5,384.62 bi-weekly. The remaining 30% of your compensation will be paid by virtue
of a stock award. As a bonus, we will award you an additional 15% stock compensation, so long as we are able. In your case, you will
be awarded 420.09 shares per pay period. Each stock award will become fully vested at the conclusion of each pay period, and we will
issue you an assignment of stock on a quarterly or annual basis. We intend to provide you this benefit for the foreseeable future, but
we reserve the right to revert to a full cash compensation model at any time. At that time and as soon as financially feasible, you will
receive the 30% of your salary that was compensated via stock award. 


   


   


 To thank you for all that you have done to make ATLIS successful, as communicated in December 2020 you were also
awarded 100 shares that are fully vested. 


   


   


   


   





   





	 /s/ Anne Pratt 	 1/4/21 
	   
	 Employee Signature
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         ENBRIDGE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.
                             PRINCIPAL SUBSIDIARIES



      The Registrant's principal subsidiaries and its ownership interest in
each:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                              OWNERSHIP INTEREST
NAME AND TYPE OF ENTITY                                                                      (DIRECT OR INDIRECT)
-----------------------                                                                      --------------------
<S>                                                                                                   <C>
Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership .......................          99%
Enbridge Pipelines (North Dakota) LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ................         100%
Enbridge Marketing (East Texas) L.P., a Delaware limited partnership .......................         100%
Enbridge Processing (East Texas) L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ......................         100%
Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P., a Delaware limited partnership .......................         100%
Enbridge (East Texas) L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company .........................         100%

</TABLE>
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Payroll Tax Rates | Description of Proposed Provision:      Beginning in 2009, reduce the combined OASDI payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 11.4 percent. |
|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2008 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified August 11, 2008 |
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4580]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Finance Docket No. 32662]


Consolidated Rail Corporation--Trackage Rights Exemption--
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.

    Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (MP) has agreed to grant overhead 
trackage rights to Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) over 
approximately 33.28 miles of rail line of its St. Louis Division, 
Chicago Subdivision main line from milepost 220.82 (at the connection 
between MP and Conrail at approximately milepost 154.1 of Conrail's St. 
Louis line), at St. Elmo, IL, continuing over MP's main line to 
milepost 254.10, at Salem, IL, and certain tracks located within the 
Common Yard owned by MP at Salem, as designated from time to time by 
MP. Conrail's trackage rights will provide it with access to the Common 
Yard, which will be established at MP's Salem Yard, to receive and 
deliver bridge traffic between Conrail and MP. The trackage rights were 
to become effective on or after February 10, 1995.
    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice 
contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab 
initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) may 
be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not stay 
the transaction. Pleadings must be filed with the Commission and served 
on: John J. Paylor, Consolidated Rail Corporation, 2001 Market Street, 
16A, P.O. Box 41416, Philadelphia, PA 19101-1416.
    As a condition to use of this exemption, any employees adversely 
affected by the trackage rights will be protected under Norfolk and 
Western Ry. Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as 
modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 
653 (1980).

    Decided: February 17, 1995.

    By the Commission, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4580 Filed 2-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.§1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of HF Financial Corp. (the “Company”) for the fiscal yearended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curtis L. Hage, Chairman, President andChief 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 tothe best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Curtis L. Hage                  |                           |
|--------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|   | Curtis L. Hage, Chairman, President |
|   | and Chief  Executive Officer        |
|   |                                |
|   | Date:                               |   September 28, 2007 |   |
|        |                                     |                                |  |

 

 

----

*              A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to HF Financial Corp. andwill be retained by HF Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7875

ALLEN HARPER-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNKNOWN POULTRY HOUSE OPERATORS, a/k/a Chicken Farmers; UNKNOWN REGIONAL/NATIONAL POULTRY PROCESSORS, a/k/a Poultry Producers; PRINCESS ANNE/E.C.I. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY; PARRIS GLENDENING, Governor; CURTIS DICKSON, Administrator; EARL D. BESHEARS, Chief Executive, Individually and in their business and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-97- 3903-L) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 21, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allen Harper-El, Appellant Pro Se.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Maryland inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Harper-El v. Unknown Poultry House Operators , No. CA-97-3903-L (D. Md. Dec. 5, 1997). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED